Full text of "The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 10"

See other formats

ELE,
CAMBRIDGE
ANCIENT HISTORY

SUS SPAUOLGC OR SPAR Sil iiee
43 B.C. - A.D. 69

THE CAMBRIDGE
ANCIENT HISTORY

SECOND EDITION

VOLUME X
The Augustan Empire, 43 B.c.—A.D. 69

edited by
ALAN K. BOWMAN
Student of Christ Church, Oxford
EDWARD CHAMPLIN

Professor of Classics, Princeton University

ANDREW LINTOTT

Fellow and Tutor in Ancient History,
Worcester College, Oxford

a3 CAMBRIDGE

y UNIVERSITY PRESS

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cB2 2RU, UK
40 West 20th Street, New York, Ny roor1-4211, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia
Ruiz de Alarcén 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain
Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa

http://www.cambridge.org
© Cambridge University Press 1996
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without

the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 1996
Fifth printing 2006

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Catalogue card number: 75-85719

ISBN 0 521 26430 8 hardback

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONTENTS

List of maps

List of teoct-figures
List of tables

List of stemmata

Preface

PARTI NARRATIVE

1 The triumviral period
by CHRISTOPHER PELLING, Fellow and Praelector in
Classics, University College, Oxford

—

II
III
IV

Vv
VI

VII
VIII
IX

XI
XII
XIII

The triumvirate
Philippi, 42 B.c.

The East, 42—40 B.c.
Perusia, 41-40 B.C.
Brundisium and Misenum, 40-39 B.C.
The East, 39-37 B.c.
Tarentum, 37 B.C.
The year 36 B.c.
35-33 B.C.
Preparation: 32 B.C.
Actium, 31 B.C.
Alexandria, 30 B.c.
Retrospect

Endnote: Constitutional questions

2 Political history, 30 B.c. to A.D. 14
by J.A. CROOK, Fellow of St John’s College, and Emeritus
Professor of Ancient History in the University of Cambridge

I
II
Til

Introduction
30-17 B.C.
16 B.C.—-A.D. 14

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

page xiv
XV
xv
xv

xix

CONTENTS

Augustus: power, authority, achievement
by J.A. CROOK
I Power
II Authority
III Achievement

The expansion of the empire under Augustus
by ERICH S. GRUEN, Professor of History and Classics,
University of California, Berkeley
I Egypt, Ethiopia and Arabia
II Asia Minor
III Judaea and Syria
IV Armenia and Parthia
V Spain
VI Africa
VII The Alps
VIII The Balkans
IX Germany
X Imperial ideology
XI Conclusion

Tiberius to Nero
by T.E.J. WIEDEMANN, Reader in the History of the Roman
Empire, University of Bristol
I The accession of Tiberius and the nature of politics
under the Julio-Claudians
II The reign of Tiberius
III Gaius Caligula
IV Claudius
V Nero

From Nero to Vespasian
by T.E.J. WIEDEMANN
I a.p. 68
II a.p. 69-70

PART II THE GOVERNMENT AND
ADMINISTRATION OF THE EMPIRE

The imperial court
by ANDREW WALLACE-HADRILL, Professor of Classics at
the University of Reading
I Introduction
II Access and ritual: court society
III Patronage, power and government
IV Conclusion

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

113

117
123

147

148
151
154
158
163
166
169
171
178
188
194

198

198
209
221
229
241

256

256
265

283

283
285
296
306

CONTENTS

8 The Imperial finances
by D.W. RATHBONE, Reader in Ancient History, King’s
College London

9 The Senate and senatorial and equestrian posts
by RICHARD J.A. TALBERT, William Rand Kenan, Jr,
Professor of History, and Adjunct Professor of Classics,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
I The Senate
II Senatorial and equestrian posts

1o Provincial administration and taxation
by ALAN K. BOWMAN
I Rome, the emperor and the provinces
II Structure
III Function
IV Conclusion

11 The army and the navy é
by LAWRENCE KEPPIE, Reader in Roman Archaeology,
Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow
I The army of the late Republic
II The army in the civil wars, 49-30 B.c.
II] The army and navy of Augustus
IV Army and navy under the Julio-Claudians
V_ The Roman army in A.D. 70

12 The administration of justice
by H. GALSTERER, Professor of Ancient History at the
Rheinische Friedrich-W ilhelms-Universitat, Bonn

PART IITITALY AND THE PROVINCES
13 The West

13a Italy and Rome from Sulla to Augustus
by M.H. CRAWFORD, Professor of Ancient History,
University College London
I Extent of Romanization
II Survival of local cultures

135 Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica
by R.J.A. WILSON, Professor of Archaeology, University of
Nottingham

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

vil

399

324

324
337

344

344
351
357
367

371

371
373
376
387
393

397

414
414

414
424

434

viii CONTENTS

13¢ Spain
by G. ALFOLDY, Professor of Ancient History in the
University of Heidelberg
I Conquest, provincial administration and military
organization
II Urbanization
III Economy and society
IV The impact of Romanization

13d Gaul
by C. GOUDINEAU, Professeur du Collége de France (chaire
d’ Antiquités nationales )
I Introduction
II Gallia Narbonensis
III Tres Galliae

13¢ Britain 43 B.C. to A.D. 69
by JOHN WACHER, Emeritus Professor of Archaeology,
University of Leicester
Pre-conquest period
II The invasion and its aftermath
III Organization of the province
IV _ Urbanization and communications
V Rural settlement
VI Trade and industry
VII Religion

13f Germany
by c. RUGER, Honorary Professor, Bonn University
I Introduction
II Roman Germany, 16 B.c.—A.D. 17
III The pericd of the establishment of the military zone
(A.D. 14-90)

13g Raetia
by H. WOLFF, Professor of Ancient History, University of
Passau
I ‘Raetia’ before Claudius
II The Claudian province

134 The Danubian and Balkan provinces
by J.J. WILKES, Yates Professor of Greek and Roman
Archaeology, University College London
I The advance to the Danube and beyond, 43 B.C.—A.D. 6

II Rebellion in Illyricum and the annexation of Thrace (a.D.

6-69)
III The Danube peoples

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

449

449
455
458
461

464

464
471
487

593

503
506
510
511
513
514
515

517

517
524

528
535

537
$41

545

$3
558

CONTENTS ix

IV Provinces and armies 565

V_ Roman colonization and the organization of the native
peoples $73
134 Roman Africa: Augustus to Vespasian 586

by C.R. WHITTAKER, Fellow of Churchill College, and formerly
Lecturer in Classics in the University of Cambridge

I Before Augustus 586

II Africa and the civil wars, 44-31 B.C. 590
III Augustan expansion 591
IV Tiberius and Tacfarinas 593
V Gaius to Nero 596
VI The administration and organization of the province Goo
VII Cities and colonies 603
VIII Romanization and resistance G10
IX The economy 615
X Roman imperialism 616
137 Cyrene 619

by JOYCE REYNOLDS, Fellow of Newnham College, and Emeritus
Reader in Roman Historical Epigraphy in the University of Cambridge
and j.A. LLOYD, Lecturer in Archaeology in the University of
Oxford, and Fellow of Wolfson College

I Introduction 619
II The country 622
III The population, its distribution, organization and

internal relationships 625

IV From the death of Caesar to the close of the Marmaric
War (¢. A.D. 6/7) 630
V A.D. 4-70 636
14 The East 641

14a Greece (including Crete and Cyprus) and Asia Minor
from 43 B.C. to A.D. 69 641
by B.M. LEVICK, Fellow and Tutor in Ancient History,
St Hilda’s College, Oxford

I Geography and development 641

II_ The triumviral period 645

II] The Augustan restoration 647

IV Consolidation under the Julio-Claudians 663

V Conclusion: first fruits 672

14b Egypt 676
by ALAN K. BOWMAN

I The Roman conquest 676

II Bureaucracy and administration 679

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

x CONTENTS

III Economy and society
IV Alexandria
V_ Conclusion

14¢ Syria
by DAVID KENNEDY, Senior Lecturer, Department of
Classics and Ancient History, University of Western Australia
I Introduction
II Establishment and development of the province
III Client states
IV Conclusion

14d Judaea
by MARTIN GOODMAN, Reader in Jewish Studies, University
of Oxford, and Fellow of Wolfson College
I The Herods
II Roman administration
III Jewish religion and society
IV Conclusion

PART IV ROMAN SOCIETY AND CULTURE
UNDER THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS

15 Rome and its development under Augustus and his
successors
by NICHOLAS PURCELL, Fellow and Tutor in Ancient
History, St John’s College, Oxford

16 The place of religion: Rome in the early Empire
by S.R.F. PRICE, Fellow and Tutor in Ancient History, Lady
Margaret Hall, Oxford
I Myths and place
II The re-placing of Roman religion
III Imperial rituals
IV Rome and Her empire

17. The origins and spread of Christianity
by G.W. CLARKE, Director, Humanities Research Centre, and
Professor of Classical Studies, Australian National University
I Origins and spread
II Christians and the law
III Conclusion

18 Social status and social legislation
by SUSAN TREGGIARI, Professor of Classics and Bass
Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford
University

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

693
699

7O2

793

793
708
728

736
737

737
750
761
780

782

812

814
820
837
841

848

848
866
871

873

CONTENTS

I Legal distinctions
II Social distinctions
III Social problems at the beginning of the Principate
IV _ The social legislation of Augustus and the Julio-
Claudians
V_ The impact of the Principate on society

19 Literature and society
by GAVIN TOWNEND, Emeritus Professor of Latin in the
University of Durham
I Definition of the period
II Patronage and its obligations
III Rhetoric and escapism
IV _ The justification of literature
V The accessibility of literature

zo Roman art, 43 B.C. to A.D. 69
by MARIO TORELLI, Professor of Archaeology and the
History of Greek and Roman Art, University of Perugia
I The general characteristics of Augustan Classicism
II The creation of the Augustan model
III From Tiberius to Nero: the crisis of the model

21 Early classical private law

by BRUCE W. FRIER, Professor of Classics and Roman Law,

University of Michigan
I The jurists and the Principate
II Augustus’ procedural reforms
III Labeo
IV Proculians and Sabinians
V Legal writing and education
VI Imperial intervention
VII The Flavian jurists

Appendices to chapter 134 by M.H. CRAWFORD
I Consular dating formulae in republican Italy
II Survival of Greek language and institutions
III Inscriptions in languages other than Latin after the
Social War
IV Italian calendars
V Votive deposits
VI Epichoric funerary practices
VII Diffusion of alien grave stelae

Stemmata

Chronological table

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

873
883

886
897

9°5

995
9°7
916
921
926

93°

930
934
952

959

959
961
964
969
973
974
978

979
981

983
985
987
987
989

99°

995

xii CONTENTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbreviations
A. General studies

B_ Sources
1. Works on ancient authors
2. Epigraphy
3. Numismatics
4. Papyrology

C Political history
1. The triumviral period and the reign of Augustus
2. The expansion of the empire, 43:B.C.—A.D. 69
3. The Julio-Claudians and the year a.p. 69

D Government and administration
The imperial court

The Senate and the equities
Provincial administration

The imperial wealth

The army and the navy

The administration of justice

Aw hw NH

E Italy and the provinces
1. Italy
Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica
Spain
Gaul
Britain
Germany
Raetia
The Balkans
9. Africa
10. Cyrene
11. Greece and Asia Minor
12. Egypt
13. Syria
14. Judaea

SSN Ree

F Society, religion and culture
1. Society and its institutions

. Religion

. Art and architecture

. Law

Aw N

Index

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

page 1006
1015

1019
1019
1027
1031
1034

1035
1035
1044
1047

1050
1050
1051
10§3
1054
1056
1059

1061
1061
1066
1068
1070
1082
1083
1084
1086
1089
10g!
1093

1097
1100

1104

TIMI
1111
1114
1120

1135
1138

CONTENTS Xili

NOTE ON THE BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography is arranged in sections dealing with specific topics, which
sometimes correspond to individual chapters but more often combine the
contents of several chapters. References in the footnotes are to these sections
(which are distinguished by capital letters) and within these sections each book
or article has assigned to it a number which is quoted in the footnotes. In these,
so as to provide a quick indication of the nature of the work referred to, the
author’s name and the date of publication are also included in each reference.
Thus ‘Syme 1986 (A 95) 50” signifies ‘R. Syme, The Augustan Revolution, Oxford,
1986, p. 0’, to be found in Section a of the bibliography as item 95.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

-
= OO MPI AM HRY DN

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

MAPS

The Roman world in the time of Augustus and the
Julio-Claudian Emperors

Italy and the eastern Mediterranean

Italy

Sicily

Sardinia and Corsica

Spain

Gaul

Britain as far north as the Humber

Germany

Raetia

Military bases, cities and settlements in the Danubian
provinces

Geography and native peoples of the Danubian provinces
Africa

Cyrene

Greece and the Aegean

Asia Minor

Egypt

Physical geography of the Near East

Syria and Arabia

Judaea

The eastern Mediterranean in the first century A.D.
illustrating the origins and spread of Christianity

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

page xvi
2

416

436

444

450

466

504

518

5 36

546
560
588
620
642
660
678
704
710
738

850

—-_ Rw DN

O0O\S9 CAN

TEXT-FIGURES

Actium: fleet positions at the beginning of the battle page 6o
Distribution of legions, 44 B.c. 374
Rodgen, Germany: ground-plan of Augustan supply base 380
Distribution of legions, a.p. 14 386
Vetera (Xanten), Germany: ground-plan of a double
legionary fortress, Neronian date 390
Valkenburg, Holland: fort-plan, ¢. a.p. 40 392
Distribution of legions, a.p. 23 394
The geography of Gaul according to Strabo 467
Autun: town-plan 494
Sketch map of Rome 786
TABLES
New senatorial posts within Rome and Italy page 338
Provinces and governors at the end of the Julio-Claudian
period 369
The legions of the early Empire 388
STEMMATA
I Descendants of Augustus and Livia page 990
II Desendants of Augustus’ sister Octavia and Mark Antony 991
III The family of Marcus Licinius Crassus Frugi 992
1V Eastern clients of Antonia, Caligula and Claudius 993
V_ Principal members of the Herodian family 994

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

8007 ‘ssorg AiszaatuQ aeSprquieg © sUTTUO saroisty espruquiey

‘ssosadwa uerpney-o1n( ay) pus smasngny jo aun oy UT pom uEWoY ay “1 dey

Twos
Sa.neW 000'L J8Ao purr] ha B

SNYI UMOYS SBIUIAGIG ~WISY

(ees 98/9)
SANIXNI SNLNOd

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PREFACE

The period covered in this volume begins a year and a half after the death
of Iulius Caesar and closes at the end of A.D. 69, more than a year after the
death of Nero, the last of the Julio-Claudian emperors. His successors,
Galba, Otho and Vitellius had ruled briefly and disappeared from the
scene, leaving Vespasian as the sole claimant to the throne of empire.
This was a period which witnessed the most profound transformation in
the political configuration of the res publica. In the decade after Caesar’s
death constitutional power was held by Caesar’s heir Octavian, Antony
and Lepidus as fresviri rei publicae constituendae. Our narrative takes as its
starting-point 27 November 43 B.c., the day on which the Lex Titia
legalized the triumviral arrangement, a few days before the death of
Cicero, which was taken as a terminal point by the editors of the new
edition of Volume rx. By 27 B.c, five years after the expiry of the
triumviral powers, Octavian had emerged as princeps and Augustus, and
in the course of the next forty years he gradually fashioned what was, in
all essentials, a monarchical and dynastic rule which, although passed
from one dynasty to another, was to undergo no radical change until the
end of the third century of our era.

If Augustus was the guiding genius behind the political transforma-
tion of the res publica, his influence was hardly less important in the
extension of Roman dominion in the Mediterranean lands, the Near East
and north-west Europe. At no time did Rome acquire more provincial
territory or more influence abroad than in the reign of the first princeps.
Accretion under his successors was steady but much slower. Conquest
apart, the period as a whole is one in which the prosperity resulting from
the pax romana, whose foundations were laid under the Republic, can be
properly documented throughout the empire.

It is probably true that there is no period in Roman history on which
the views of modern scholars have been more radically transformed in
the last six decades. It is therefore appropriate to indicate briefly in what
respects this volume differs most significantly, in approach and cover-
age, from its predecessor and to justify the scheme which has been
adopted, particularly in view of the fact that the new editions of the three

xix

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

xx PREFACE

volumes covering the period between the death of Caesar and the death
of Constantine have to some extent been planned as a unity.

As far as the general scheme is concerned, we have considered it
essential to have as a foundation a political narrative history of the
period, especially to emphasize what was contingent and unpredictable
(chs. 1-6). The following chapters are more analytical and take a longer
view of government and institutions (chs. 7~12), regions (chs. 13-14),
social and cultural developments (chs. 15—21), although we have tried on
the whole to avoid the use of an excessively broad brush. Interesting and
invaluable though it was in its day, we have not been able to contemp-
late, for example, a counterpart to F. Oertel’s chapter (1st edn ch. 13) on
the ‘Economic unification of the Mediterranean region’. We are con-
scious, however, that in the absence of such chapters something of value
has been lost and we urge readers not to regard the first edition as a
volume of merely antiquarian interest; the chapters of Syme on the
northern frontiers (12) and Nock on religious developments (14), to
name but two, still have much to offer to the historian.

The profound influence of Sir Ronald Syme’s The Roman Revolution,
published five years after the first edition of CAH Volume x, is very
evident in the following pages, as is that of his other, prosopographical
and social studies which have done so much to re-write the history of the
Roman aristocracy in the first century of the Empire. No one will now
doubt that the historian of the Roman state in this period has to take as
much account of the importance of family connexions, of patronage, of
status and property relations as of constitutional or institutional history;
and to see how these relations worked through the institutions of the res
publica, the ordines, the army, the governmental offices and provincial
society.

The influence of another twentieth-century classic, M. I. Rostovt-
zeff’s Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, first published in
1926, was perhaps less evident in the pages of the first edition of CAH
Volume x than might have been expected. That balance, it is hoped, has
been redressed. Rostovtzeff’s great achievement was to synthesize, as
no-one had done before, the evidence of written documents, buildings,
coins, sculpture, painting, artefacts and archaeology into a social and
economic history of the empire under Roman rule which did not adopt a
narrowly Romanocentric perspective. The sheer amount of new evi-
dence accruing for the different regions of the empire in the last sixty
years is immense. It is impossible for a single scholar to command
expertise and knowledge of detail over the empire as a whole, and
regional specialization is a marked feature of modern scholarship. The
present volume recognizes this by incorporating chapters on each of the
regions or provinces, as well as Italy, a scheme which will also be

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PREFACE Xxi

adopted in the new edition of Volume xt. As far as these surveys of the
parts of the empire are concerned, the guiding principle has been that the
chapters in the present volume should attempt to describe the develop-
ments which were the preconditions for the achievements, largely
beneficial, of the ‘High Empire’, while the corresponding chapters in
Volume x1 will describe more statically, wutatis mutandis, the state of the
different regions of the Roman world during that period.

Something must be said about the apparent omissions and idiosyncra-
sies. We have not thought it necessary to write an account of the sources
for the period. The major literary sources (Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius
Dio, Josephus) have been very well served by recent scholarship and this
period is not, from the point of view of the literary evidence, as
problematical as those which follow. The range of documentary,
archaeological and numismatic evidence for different topics and regions
has been thought best left to individual contributors to summarize as
they considered appropriate.

The presence in this volume of a chapter on the unification of Italy
might be thought an oddity. Its inclusion here was a decision taken in
consultation with the editors of the new edition of Volume 1x, on the
ground that the Augustan period is a good standpoint from which to
consider a process which cannot really be considered complete before
that, and perhaps not fully complete even by the Augustan age. Two of
the chapters (those on Egypt and on the development of Roman law)
will have counterparts in Volume x11 (A.D. 193-337), but not in Volume
x1; in both cases the accounts given here are intended to be generally
valid for the first two centuries a.D. The treatment of Judaea and of the
origins of Christianity posed difficulties of organization and articulation,
given the extensive overlap of subject-matter. We nevertheless decided
to invite different scholars to write these sections and to juxtapose them.
It still seems surprising that the first edition of this volume contains no
account of the origins and early growth of Christianity, a phenomenon
which is, from the point of view of the subsequent development of
civilization, surely the most important single feature of our period. Some
degree of overlap with other standard works of reference is inevitable.
We have, however, deliberately tried to avoid this in the case of literature
by including a chapter which is intended as a history of literary activity in
its social context, rather than a history of the literature of the period as
such, which can be found in The Cambridge History of Classical Literature,
Vols. 1 and u.

Each contributor was asked, as far as possible, to provide an account
of his or her subject which summarizes the present state of knowledge
and (in so far as it exists) orthodoxy, indicating points at which a
different view is adopted. It would have been impossible and undesirable

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

XXii PREFACE

to demand uniformity of perspective and the individual chapters, as is
proper, reflect a rich variety of approach and viewpoint, Likewise, we
have not insisted on uniformity of practice in the use of footnotes,
although contributors were asked to avoid long and discursive notes as
far as possible. We can only repeat the statement of the editors in their
preface to Vol. vim, that the variations reflect the different requirements
of the contributors and their subject-material. It will be noted that the
bibliographies are much more extensive and complex than in earlier
volumes of The Cambridge Ancient History; again a reflection of the
greater volume of important work which has been produced on this
period in recent years. Most authors have included in the bibliographies,
which are keyed by coded references, all, or most, of the secondary
works cited in their chapters; others have included in the footnotes some
reference to books, articles and, particularly, publications of primary
sources which were not considered of sufficient general relevance to be
included in the bibliographies. We have let these stand.

Most of the chapters in this volume were written between 1983 and
1988 and we are conscious of the fact that the delay between composition
and publication has been much longer than we would have wished. The
editors themselves must bear a share of the responsibility for this. The
checking of notes and bibliographies, the process of getting typescripts
ready for the press has too often been perforce relegated because of the
pressure of other commitments. Contributors have, nonetheless, been
given the opportunity to update their bibliographies and we hope that
they still have confidence in what they wrote.

There are various debts which it is a pleasure to acknowledge.
Professor John Crook was involved in the planning of this volume and
we are much indebted to his erudition, sagacity and common sense. We
very much regret that he did not feel able to maintain his involvement in
the editorial process and we are the poorer for it. For the speedy and
efficient translation of chapters 14¢, 144 and 20 we are indebted,
respectively, to Dr G. D. Woolf, Dr J.-P. Wild (who also provided
valuable bibliographical guidance) and Edward Champlin. Mr Michael
Sharp, of Corpus Christi College, Oxford and Mr Nigel Hope rendered
meticulous and much-appreciated assistance with the bibliographies.
David Cox drew the maps; the index was compiled by Barbara Hird.

To Pauline Hire and to others at Cambridge University Press involved
in the supervision and production of this volume, we offer thanks for
patience, good humour and ready assistance.

A.K.B

E.J.C
A.W.L

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 1

THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

CHRISTOPHER PELLING

I. THE TRIUMVIRATE

On 27 November 43, the Lex Titia initiated the period of absolute rule at
Rome. Antony, Lepidus and Octavian were charged with ‘restoring the
state’, triumviri rei publicae constituendae: but they were empowered to
make or annul laws without consulting Senate or people, to exercise
jurisdiction without any right of appeal, and to nominate magistrates of
their choice; and they carved the world into three portions, Cisalpine and
Further Gaul for Antony, Narbonensis and Spain for Lepidus, Sicily,
Sardinia and Corsica for Octavian. In effect, the three were rulers. Soon
there would be two, then one; the Republic was already dead.

Not that, at the time, the permanence of the change could be clear. As
Tacitus brings out in the first sentence of the Amna/s, the roots of
absolute power were firmly grounded in the Republic itself: there had
been phases of despotism before — Sulla and Caesar, and in some ways
Pompey too — and they had passed; the cause of Brutus and Cassius in the
East was not at all hopeless. But what was clear was that history and
politics had changed, and were changing still. The triumviral period was
to be one of the great men feeling their way, unclear how far (for
instance) a legion’s loyalty could simply be bought, whether the
propertied classes or the discontented poor of Rome and Italy could be
harnessed as a genuine source of strength, how influential the old
families and their patronage remained. At the beginning, there was a case
for a quinquevirate, for Plancus and Pollio had played no less crucial a
role than Lepidus in the manoeuvrings of mid-43. But Lepidus was
included, Plancus and Pollio were not; and Lepidus owed that less to his
army than to his clan and connexions. In 43 those seemed to matter; a few
years later they were irrelevant, and so was he. Money too was a new,
incalculable factor. In 44-43 the promises made to the troops reached
new heights; and there was certainly money around — money of Caesar
himself; money from the dead dictator’s friends, men like Balbus and
Matius; money that would be minted in plenty throughout the Roman
world — no wonder that so many hoards from the period have been
found, some of them vast.! But would that money ever find its way to the

' Crawford 1969 (B 318) 117-31, 1985 (B 320) 252.
i

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

<x
ly
wn
wy
=
x
>
wy

2. Italy and the eastern Mediterranean.

Map

s, 2008

ries Online © Cambridge University Pres

Cambridge Histo:

4 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

legionaries? They did not know; no one knew. The role of propaganda
was also changing. Cicero had been one master of the craft — we should
not, for instance, assume that the Phi/ippics were simply aimed at a
senatorial audience; they would have force when read in the camps and
market-places of Italy. But what constituency was worth making the
propagandist’s target? The armies, certainly: they were a priority in 4q—
43. But what of the Italians in the municipalities? Could they be won, and
would they be decisive? Increasingly, the propaganda in the thirties
turned in their direction, and they were duly won for Octavian. But was
he wise to make them his priority — did they matter much in the final war?
One may doubt it, though they certainly mattered in the ensuing peace.
But it was that sort of time. No one knew what sources of strength could
be found, or how they would count. The one thing that stood out was
that the rules were new.

The difference is even harder for us to gauge than for contemporaries,
simply because of our source-material. No longer do we have Cicero’s
speeches, dialogues and correspondence to illuminate events; instead we
have only the sparsest of contemporary literary and epigraphic material,
and have to rely on much later narratives — Appian, who took the story
down to the death of Sextus Pompeius in his extant Civi/ Wars (he told of
Actium and Alexandria in his lost Egyptian History), Cassius Dio, who
gave a relatively full account of the triumviral period in Books xtv1i—;
and Plutarch’s fine Lives of Brutus and Antony. Suetonius too had some
useful material in his Agustus; so does Josephus. The source-material
used by these authors is seldom clear, though Asinius Pollio evidently
influenced the tradition considerably, and so did Livy and the colourful
Q. Dellius; but all the later authors may well have used other, more
recherché material. Still, all are often demonstrably inaccurate, and there
is indeed a heavy element of fiction throughout the tradition. Octavian’s
contemporary propaganda, doubtless repeated and reinforced in his
Autobiography when it appeared during the twenties, spread stories of the
excesses and outrages of Antony and Cleopatra; then the later authors,
especially Plutarch, elaborated with romance, evincing sometimes more
sympathy for the lovers, but scarcely more accuracy. And all these
authors naturally concentrated on the principals themselves — Brutus,
Cassius, Octavian, Sextus, Antony and Cleopatra. We are given very
little idea of what everyday political life in Rome was like, how far the
presence of these great men smothered routine activity and debate in the
Senate, the courts, the assemblies and the streets. The triumvirs
controlled appointments to the consulship and to many of the lower
offices, but some elections took place as well; we just do not know how
many, or how fiercely and genuinely they were contested.? The plebs and

2 Cf. Frei-Stolba 1967 (c 92) 80—6; Millar 1973 (C 175) 51-3-

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PHILIPPI, 42 B.C. 5

the Italian cities did not always take the triumvirs’ decisions supinely;
but we do not know how often or how effectively the triumvirs were
opposed in the Senate, or how much freedom of speech and action
senators asserted in particular areas. We hear little or nothing of the
equites. we cannot be sure that they were so passive or uninfluential. We
no longer hear of showpiece political trials; it does not follow that they
never happened. Everything in the sources is painted so starkly, in terms
of the actions and ambitions of the great persons themselves. We have
moved from colour into black and white.

Il. PHILIPPI, 42 B.C.

At Rome the year 42 began momentously. Iulius Caesar was consecrated
as a god.3 Roman generals were used to divine acclamations in the East,
and divine honours had been paid in plenty to Caesar during his lifetime:
but a formal decree of this kind was still different. Octavian might now
style himself divi filius if he chose;4 and the implications for his prestige
were, like so much else, incalculable. But a more immediate concern was
the campaign against Brutus and Cassius in the East, a war of vengeance
which the consecration invested with a new solemnity. Antony and
Octavian were to share the command. The triumvirs now controlled
forty-three legions: probably forty were detailed to serve in the East,
though only twenty-one or twenty-two actually took part in the
campaign and only nineteen fought at Philippi.5 Lepidus would remain
in control of Italy, but here too Antony’s influence would be strong: for
two of his partisans were also to stay, Calenus in Italy and Pollio in the
Cisalpina, both with strong armies.

A preliminary force of eight triumviral legions, under C. Norbanus
and L. Decidius Saxa, crossed the Adriatic early in the year: but the
Liberators’ fleets soon began to operate in the Adriatic, eventually some
130 ships under L. Staius Murcus and Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, and it
would evidently be difficult to transport the main army. A further
uncertainty was furnished by the growing naval power of Sextus
Pompeius. His role in the politics of 44—43 had been slight, but he had
appeared on the proscription list, and now it must have seemed
inevitable that he would be forced into the Liberators’ camp. By early 42
he had established himself in control of Sicily, his fleet was growing
formidable, and he was already serving as a refuge for the disaffected,
fearful and destitute of all classes. Many of the proscribed now swelled
his strength. But Octavian sent Salvidienus Rufus to attack Sextus’ fleet,

3 Dio xivit.18.3-19.3; cf. Weinstock 1971 (F 235) 386-98; Wallman 1989 (c 243) 52-8.
4 Hedid not choose for some time: the title first appears on coins of (probably) 40/39 (RRC 525).
5 Brunt 1971 (A 9) 484-5; Botermann 1968 (c 36) 181-204.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

6 1. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

and a great but indecisive battle ensued outside the Straits of Messana.
After this Sextus’ contribution was slight, and the Liberators gained
very little benefit from potentially so valuable an ally. By summer, the
main triumviral army managed to force its crossing.

In Macedonia the news of the proscriptions and Cicero’s death had
sealed C. Antonius’ fate: he was at last executed, probably on Brutus’
orders.6 Brutus himself had been active in Greece, Macedonia, Thrace
and even Asia through the second half of 43, raising and training troops
and securing allies and funds. He finally began his march to meet Cassius
perhaps in the late summer, more likely not until early 42.7 Cassius
himself was delayed far away in the East till late in 43: even after
Dolabella’s defeat in July, there was still trouble to clear up — in Tarsus,
for instance, where he imposed a fine of 1,500 talents, and in Cappadocia,
where unrest persisted until Cassius’ agents murdered the king Ariobar-
zanes and seized his treasure in summer 42. The troubles were doubtless
exacerbated by the harshness of Cassius’ exactions, but the wealth of the
East was potentially the Liberators’ greatest asset (extended though they
were to support their army, the triumvirs’ position was even worse), and
Cassius naturally wanted to exploit it to the full. It was perhaps not until
winter, when the triumvirs had united and there were already fears that
the first of their troops were crossing to Greece, that Cassius began the
long westward march.® He and Brutus met in Smyrna in the spring of 42.
Between them they controlled probably twenty-one legions, of which
nineteen fought in the decisive campaign.?

The story went that they differed over strategy, Brutus wishing to
return quickly to Macedonia, Cassius insisting that they first needed to
secure their rear by moving against Rhodes and the cities of Lycia.!0
Cassius had his reasons, of course. Lycia and Rhodes were temptingly
wealthy, and there were even some strategic arguments for delay: with
the Liberators dominating the sea, the triumviral armies might be
destroyed by simple lack of supplies. But still he was surely wrong.
Philippi is a very long way east, and the battles there were fought very

6 Plut. Brut. 28.1, Ant. 22.6, probably right on chronology and responsibility; cf. esp. Dio
XLVII.24.3—6.

7 Plut. Brut. 28.3 and Dio xivii.25.1—2 agree that this march began after C. Antonius’ death, but
the chronology is very insecure.

8 Cf. App. BCiv. 1v.63.270-1; Dio xivit.32.1; Plut. Brut. 28.3. So long a winter march is hard to
believe, but the sources clearly connect the beginning of the march with news of the proscriptions
and related events; there does not in any case seem time for it in late summer or autumn 43; yet it
cannot have been as late as spring 42, for that would not leave time for the campaigns in southern
Asia Minor.

9 Brunt 1971 (A 9) 485—8; Botermann 1968 (c 36) 204-11.

10 App. BCiv. 1v.65.276-7; cf, Plut. Brut. 28.3-5; contrast Dio xivi1.32, defensively stressing
their unanimity.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PHILIPPI, 42 B.C. 7

late in the year. The friendly states in Macedonia and northern Greece,
who had welcomed Brutus with some spontaneity the previous year and
whose accession Cicero had so warmly acclaimed in the Tenth Philippic,
were by then lost, and their wealth and crops were giving vital support to
the triumvirs, not the Liberators. Rhodes and Lycia had strong navies,
but Cassius and Brutus had very little to fear from them: the Liberators
would dominate the sea in any case. It would surely have been better to
move west quickly, provide better bases for their fleet in the Adriatic,
and seek to isolate the advanced force on the west coast of Greece — to
play the 48 campaign over again, in fact; and those eight unsupported
legions of Norbanus and Saxa would have been hopelessly outmatched.
The Liberators’ brutal treatment of Rhodes and Lycia did nothing for
their posthumous moral reputation. Perhaps it also cost them the war.

Cassius moved against Rhodes, Brutus against Lycia, and both won
swift, total victories: in particular, the appalling scenes of slaughter and
mass suicide in Lycian Xanthus became famous. Perhaps 8,500 talents
were extorted from Rhodes; the figure of 150 talents for Lycia is hard to
believe.!! The other peoples of Asia were ordered to pay the massive sum
of ten years’ tribute, although the region had already been squeezed
dreadfully in the preceding years. Some of the money was doubtless paid
direct to the legionaries, some more was kept back for further distribu-
tions during the decisive campaign: in the event the army stayed notably
loyal, though this was doubtless not only for crude material reasons. The
campaigns were rapid, but it was still June or July before Brutus and
Cassius met again at Sardis, and began the northward march to the
Hellespont, which they crossed in August.

Norbanus and Saxa had marched across Macedonia unopposed, and
took up a position east of Philippi, trying to block the narrow passes; but
the much larger force of Brutus and Gassius outflanked them, and
reached Philippi at the beginning of September. Norbanus and Saxa fell
back upon Amphipolis, where they linked with the main army under
Antony: Octavian, weakened by illness, was following some way
behind. Brutus and Cassius then occupied a strong position across the
Via Egnatia. Within a few days Antony came up and boldly camped only
a mile distant, in a much weaker position in the plain. Octavian, still sick,
joined him ten days later. Despite the strength of their position, the
Liberators at first sought to avoid a battle. They controlled the sea, the
triumvirs’ land communications to Macedonia and Thessaly were
exposed, and Antony and Octavian would find it difficult to maintain a
long campaign. But Antony’s deft operations and earthworks soon
began to threaten the Liberators’ left, and Cassius and Brutus decided to

" Plut. Brut. 32.4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

8 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

accept battle. There was not much difference in strength between the two
sides: the triumviral legions had perhaps nearly 100,000 infantry, the
Liberators something over 70,000; but the Liberators were the stronger
in cavalry, with 20,000 against 13,000.12

Cassius commanded the left, Brutus the right, facing Antony and
Octavian respectively. The battle began on Cassius’ wing, as Antony
stormed one of his fortifications. Then Brutus’ troops charged, appar-
ently without orders; but they were highly successful, cutting to pieces
three of Octavian’s legions and even capturing the enemy camp. Cassius
fared much worse: Antony’s personal gallantry played an important
part, it seems, and he in turn captured Cassius’ camp. In the dust and the
confusion Cassius despaired too soon, and in ignorance of Brutus’
victory he killed himself. So ended this first battle of Philippi (early
October 42). On the same day (or so it was said) the Liberators won a
great naval victory in the Adriatic, as Murcus and Ahenobarbus
destroyed two legions of triumviral reinforcements.

Then there were three weeks of inaction. The first battle had done
nothing to ease the triumviral problems of supply, and Antony was
forced to detach a whole legion to march to Greece for provisions. But
Brutus was under pressure from his own army to fight again; he was a
less respected general than Cassius, and after the first battle he feared
desertions; and he also soon found his own line of supplies from the sea
threatened, for Antony and Octavian occupied new positions in the
south. He felt forced to accept a second battle (23 October). His own
wing may again have won some success, but eventually all his lines
broke. The carnage was very great; and Brutus too took his own life.
With him died the republican cause. Several of the surviving nobles also
killed themselves, some were executed, others obtained pardon; a few
fled to Murcus, Ahenobarbus, or Sextus Pompeius. Most of the troops
came over to the triumvirs.!3

Antony had long been known as a military man, but until now his
record was not especially lustrous. His wing had played little part at
Pharsalus, he had been absent from most of Caesar’s other battles, and
the outcome at Mutina had been shameful. All that was now erased.
Octavian had given little to this victory; he had indeed been absent from
the first battle — hiding in the marsh, and not even his friends could deny
it.!4 Before the fighting the forces had appeared equally matched: it was
Antony’s operations that forced the battles, his valour that won the day.
He took the glory and the prestige. Now and for years to come, the
world saw Antony as the victor of Philippi.

12 Cf. esp. App. BCiv. 1v.108.454; Brunt 1971 (a 9) 487.
33 App. BCw. 1v.135.568-1 36.576, v.2.4—-9; Dio xivit.49.3—4; Brunt 1971 (a 9) 488.
'4 Agrippa and Maecenas, Pliny, HN vu.148.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE EAST, 42-40 B.C. 9

IlI. THE EAST, 42-40 B.C.

Antony’s strength was reflected in the new division of responsibility and
power. His task would be the organization of the East; he was also to
retain Further Gaul, and take Narbonensis from Lepidus; he would lose
only the Cisalpina, which was to become part of Italy. Italy itself was
nominally left out of the reckoning, but Octavian was to be the man on
the spot, with the arduous and unpopular task of settling the veterans in
the Italian cities. He was also to carry on the war against Sextus
Pompeius; he would retain Sardinia; and he too was to gain at Lepidus’
expense, taking from him both provinces of Spain. Lepidus himself
would be allowed only Africa; and there was some doubt even about
that.!5 Already, clearly, he was falling behind his colleagues. Antony was
also to keep the greater part of the legions. A large number of the troops
in the East had served their time, and were to be demobilized; the rest,
including those who had just come over from Brutus and Cassius, were
to be re-formed into eleven legions. Antony was to take six of these,
Octavian five; he was also to lend Antony a further two. The position
concerning the western legions is more obscure, but there too Antony’s
marshals seem to have controlled about as many legions as Octavian. '6
Antony promised that Calenus would transfer to Octavian two legions
in Italy to compensate for the two he was now borrowing: but such
promises readily foundered. The legions stayed with Calenus.

In Antony’s lifetime two generals had successfully invaded Italy from
their provinces, Sulla from the East and Caesar from Gaul. Both Gaul
and the East would now fall to Antony. The menace was clear. The case
of Gaul is particularly interesting. So much of the fighting and
diplomacy of the last two years had been, in one way or another, a
struggle for Gaul: and the province’s strategic importance was very
clear.!7 With hindsight, we always associate Antony with the East;
Octavian’s propaganda was to make great play with his oriental
degeneracy. But nothing suggests that Antony yet planned any extended
stay in the East. Naturally, he eyed its riches and prestige; he might of
course have to play Sulla over again; but it was just as likely that he
would return peaceably, as Pompey had returned in the sixties, to new
power and authority in the West. In that case, and in the likely event of
the triumvirs eventually falling out, Gaul would prove vital. Its
governor would be Calenus, with eleven legions: Antony could rely on
him. And, even if the Cisalpina were technically part of Italy, that too

'S App. BCw. v.3.12 and Dio xiviir.1.3 (cf. xLviit.22.2) suggest some equivocation.

'6 Cf. Brunt 1971 (A 9) 493—7-

17 ©... Galliaque quae semper pracsidet atque praesedit huic imperio’, Cic. Phil. v.37; cf. esp. Phil.
V.§, XILQ, 13, XITI.37.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

10 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

would not be out of Antony’s control: Pollio was to be there, and he too
had veterans under his command. The trusty Ventidius would also be
active in the West, perhaps in Gaul, perhaps in Italy.18 In the event
Antony’s possession of Gaul came to nothing, for Octavian took it over
bloodlessly on Calenus’ death in 4o. It was that important historical
accident that would turn Antony decisively towards the East. But, for
the moment, possession of Gaul kept all his important options free.

The East came first. Its regulation would be a massive task, but a
rewarding one; and it also offered the possibility of a war against Parthia.
King Orodes had helped Cassius and Brutus,!9 and vengeance was in
order; indeed, the republican commander Labienus was still at the
Parthian court. No one yet knew what to expect of that; but, whether or
not Parthia attacked Roman Asia Minor again, a Roman general could
always attack Parthia, avenging Crassus’ defeat, tickling the Roman
imagination and enhancing his own prestige. He might even appear a
second Alexander, if all went well: that always had a particular appeal to
Roman fancy.

Antony spent the winter of 42/1 in Greece, where he made a parade of
his philhellenism.2° In spring 41 he crossed to Asia; it seems that he
visited Bithynia, and presumably Pontus too, before returning to the
Aegean coast.?! At Ephesus, effectively Asia’s capital, he was greeted asa
god — such acclamations were by now almost routine in the East;72 but
exuberance soon turned sour, as Antony addressed representatives of the
Asian cities and announced his financial demands. Yet again, the East
found it had to fund both sides in a Roman civil war: and this time vast
sums were needed to satisfy the legions — perhaps 150,000 talents if all the
promised rewards were to be paid. That was well beyond even the
East’s resources, especially after the exactions of Dolabella, then Cassius
and Brutus. Antony eventually demanded nine years’ tribute from Asia,
to be paid over two years; 24 and he would be fortunate if the province
could manage that. Asia’s normal tribute was probably less than 2,000
talents a year.25 Even allowing for contributions from the other eastern
provinces and for extra sums from client kings and free cities,26 Antony
could scarcely hope for more than 20,000 talents, the amount which Sulla
raised in a similar levy after the Mithridatic War. And not all of that
could be spent on rewards. There were the running costs of Antony’s

18 App. BCw. v.31.121 with MRR 11 393. 19 App. BCw. 1v.59.257, 63.271, 88.373, 99-414.

2 Plut. Ant.23. 2! Joseph. Aj x1v.301—-4; cf. Buchheim 1960 (c 49) 11-12.

2 Plut. Ast. 24.4 with Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad loc.

23 App. BCiv. v.5.21 makes Antony claim that he needs ‘money, land and cities’ for twenty-eight
legions, comprising 170,000 men pera tw ovvraccopévey: there were also the cavalry and ‘another
mass of another army’. The figure 170,000 may be realistic for the total of triumviral troops,
including those in the West (of auvracadpevor ?), owed money, land, or both: but ‘another mass of
another army’ is obscure. Cf. esp. Brunt 1971 (A 9) 489-94, Keppie 1983 (E 65) 60-1.

24 App. BCw. v.6.27. 23 Broughton 1938 (£ 821) 562-4 estimated it as 1,600 talents.

% Cf. App. BCiv. v.6.27.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE EAST, 42-40 B.C. Il

army and staff; there was a fleet to build, for Murcus, Ahenobarbus and
Sextus were still worryingly strong;?’ there were preparations to be
made for war with Parthia. The troops were still calling for their rewards
a year later.28

Yet there was generosity, too, in Antony’s dispensations. He par-
doned virtually all the supporters of Brutus and Cassius, excepting only
those who had participated in the tyrannicide itself; that was more
merciful than many expected.29 The states that had suffered worst from
the Liberators, Lycia and Rhodes, were excused from the levies; later he
extended a similar clemency to Laodicea and Tarsus. Rhodes was indeed
given some new territory — Andros, Tenos, Naxos and Myndus.* From
mainland Greece the Athenians soon sent an embassy, and they too were
favoured: they gained control of several islands, including Aegina.
Antony was clearly favouring the great cultural centres. Such ostenta-
tious philhellenism doubtless came naturally to him, but it might also
prove politically valuable, and not merely in certain circles at Rome: in
the East itself it had become fashionable for monarchs to show their
enthusiasm for the great cities of the past by benefactions, and they
might applaud Antony when he showed similar indulgence. It was also
probably now, and in line with the same cultural policy, that he granted
various privileges and immunities to ‘the worldwide association of
victors in the festival games’ — an association which, it seems, included
artists and poets as well as athletes.>! Antony spent the rest of summer 41
in touring the eastern provinces, imposing further levies and beginning
to reorganize the administration after the disruption of the war: Antony
himself could refer to Asia’s need to recover from its ‘great illness’.3? The
range and deftness of his dispositions were eventually to be peculiarly
impressive, but as yet there was only time for a few piecemeal measures.
The highest priority had to be the regions furthest to the east, for they
would be vital if it came to war with Parthia. Syria was particularly
sensitive. Its cities had greeted Cassius with enthusiasm, and he had
supported tyrants who were (it seems) disturbingly sympathetic to
Parthia:33 most of them clearly had to go. So, probably, did Marion,
tyrant of Tyre.34 Herod of Judaea was similarly compromised by his

2 App. BCiv. v.55.230. 28 Dio xLviii.30.2.

2 Dio xiviir.24.6 — perhaps guesswork, but as often intelligent.

* Possibly Amorgus too: ef. 1G x11 5.38 and x11 Supp. p. 102 no. 38, with Schmitt 1957 (E872) 186
Nn. 2; contra, Fraser and Bean 1954 (E 828) 163 n. 3.

3! EJ? 300, RDGE $7; but it is possible that these privileges were not granted till 32: see RDGE
ad loc, and Millar 1973 (c 175) $5, 1977 (A $9) 456. Cf. also the triumviral inscription from Ephesus
conceming travel-privileges for ‘teachers, sophists and doctors’: Knibbe 1981 (c 138).

32 In his letter to the Jews, Joseph. AJ xiv.312.

3 According to App. BCi. v.10.39, 42, they fled to the Parthian king after their deposition: not
improbable, cf. Buchheim 1960 (c 49) 27.

* Tyrant in 42 when he invaded Galilee (Joseph. BJ 1.238-9, AJ xtv.298); but Antony’s letter in

41 (next note) is addressed only to the magistrates and council (4J x1v.314). Cf. Weinstock RE xiv
1803.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

12 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

support for Cassius, but here Antony knew better than to play into the
hands of the anti-Roman nobility. Herod and his brother Phasael were
recognized as ‘tetrarchs’; Judaea even recovered some territory it had
lost to the Phoenician cities.25 And Egypt, with all its wealth, would
inevitably be important. Momentously, Antony summoned its queen to
meet him in Cilicia.

Plutarch and Shakespeare have immortalized the famous meeting on
the Cydnus — the marvellous gilded barge, the purple sails, Cleopatra’s
display as Aphrodite; and, delightfully, much of the description is likely
to be true. The queen’s relations with Antony swiftly became more
than diplomatic: their twins were born only a year later; and he spent the
winter of 41-40 with her in Alexandria — a winter of careless frolics, so
the story later went.>’ But there were bloody elements too. Cleopatra was
still insecure on her throne, threatened by her sister Arsinoe; Antony had
Arsinoe dragged from sanctuary in Ephesus and murdered. Tyre had to
surrender Serapion, the admiral who had betrayed Cleopatra’s fleet to
Cassius and Brutus; Arados was forced to give up a pretender to the
Egyptian throne. Later writers naturally dwelt on the infatuation which
forced Antony to such gruesomeness; but he could reasonably feel that it
made political sense to favour Cleopatra in this way. He was regularly to
favour strong, talented rulers, people like Polemo in Pontus or Herod in
Judaea, people on whom he felt he could rely; and he could certainly rely
on Cleopatra. Any infatuation was clearly under control; at least, for the
present. In the spring of 4o he left her, and did not return for nearly four
years.

For by the spring Alexandria was no place for Antony. Worrying
news had been arriving about disorder in Italy, and now there was a
more immediate threat in Asia Minor itself. During 41 Antony had
probably been preparing for an offensive war against Parthia — by the end
of the season he had indeed taken the border town of Palmyra in Syria. It
seems that Parthia, naturally enough, responded by gathering a force in
Mesopotamia to meet the evident threat. But, after Antony had departed
to Alexandria for the winter, the Parthians decided to seize the moment
and attack Roman Asia Minor themselves;38 and, far from waging a
glorious campaign of vengeance, Antony had to hasten to put up what
defence he could. The Parthian command was shared between the
crown-prince Pacorus and Q. Labienus himself, son of that famous
commander of Caesar who went over to Pompey at the beginning of the
civil war. Brutus and Cassius had sent him to seek aid from Orodes, and

35 Tyre, Sidon, Antioch and Aradus: cf. Joseph. AJ xtv.304-23, quoting verbatim Antony’s
letters to the Jews and to Tyre. % Plut. Ant. 26, with Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad loc.
37 Plut. Ant. 28-9; cf. App. BCiv. v.11.43-4.

38 Dio xivi1.24.6-8, explicidy placing the decision after Labienus had heard of Antony’s
‘departure to Egypt’.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE EAST, 42-40 B.C. 13

he had still been at the Parthian court when news of Philippi arrived.
Wisely, he stayed where he was; and we need not doubt that he played an
important role in persuading Orodes to attack now, when he rightly
gauged that Antony might be vulnerable. It is easy but unfair to see
Labienus as a latter-day Coriolanus, a renegade turning against his
country through pique. In fact, republicans had long since been playing
for Parthian support. Pompey had sought an alliance with Orodes
against Caesar; a few years later the Parthians had been helping the
republican troops of Q. Caecilius Bassus against Caesarians in Syria;
Parthian contingents had even fought in the Philippi campaign.*! Over
in the West, men could equally toy with the notion of exploiting Gallic
nobles in a Roman civil war; might they not show themselves worthier
champions of liberty than the Romans themselves?42 Doubtless there
was hypocrisy in such proud phrases; but it was not confined to
Labienus. He was indeed largely welcomed by the Roman garrisons in
Syria,*3 and apparently in Asia too.

The campaign began in the early spring of 40. Labienus — now styling
himself Q. LABIENUS PARTHICUS IMPERATOR%S — and Pacorus
swiftly overran Syria: it had fallen before Antony could even reach Tyre,
then he anyway found it necessary to sail west to Italy. The Parthian
successes continued. Pacorus took Palestine, and installed the pretender
Antigonus on the throne; Phasael was taken captive, then contrived to
kill himself; Herod fled to Rome. Meanwhile Labienus swept through
Cilicia and onward to the Ionian coast. The Carian cities of Alabanda
and Mylasa fell to him, and Stratoniceia and Aphrodisias clearly suffered
terribly; so perhaps did Miletus;4”7 Lydia too was overrun.‘® Labienus
met no effective resistance till 39, and by then northern Asia Minor
had also felt his power; his agents were raising money even from
Bithynia.*°

And Antony could do nothing about it; for by now the news from
Italy was even more alarming.

*% Plut. Pomp. 76.4; in general, cf. Timpe 1962 (c 236) 114-16.

42 Plancus in Cic. Fam. x.8.3 and 6, with n. in D. R. Shackleton Bailey’s commentary.

“® Dio xivit.2z5.2 implies that the garrisons were composed of old partisans of Brutus and
Cassius, though this is scarcely credible in so sensitive an area: cf. Brunt 1971 (A 9) 497-

“ Strab. xvr.2.24-5 (660C); cf. Brunt 1971 (a 9) 497.

“5 So on coins, EJ? 8, RRC 524: ef. Strab. xtv.2.24~5 (660C); Plut. Ant. 28.1; Dio xivit.26.5.
Plutarch and Strabo both take Parthicus imperator together, ‘commander of the Parthians’; Dio more
plausibly takes Parthicus as an assumed cognomen, implying that Labienus had himself acclaimed
imperator by his troops and also took the cognomen Parthicus. Cf. Crawford 1974 (B 319) 529;
Wallmann 1989 (Cc 243) 232-4.

“ Dio xivi.26.3—4; Strab. x1v.2.24-5 (660C); Tac. Aan. 1.62.2; RDGE 27 (Stratoniceia) and
$9-6o (Mylasa); Reynolds 1982 (B 270) docs. 11, 12, and probably 7 and 13 (Aphrodisias).

47 Rehm 1914 (B 267) 128-9. 43 Plut. Ast. 30.2. ® Strab. x11.8.7—9 (5 74C).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

14 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD
Iv. PERUSIA, 41-40 B.C.

Even before Philippi, eighteen Italian cities had been marked down to
provide land for the triumvirs’ veterans; and it fell to Octavian to
organize the settlement. It was a hateful task, involving widespread
confiscation and intense misery for the dispossessed, who received no
compensation: a hideous climax to a half-century of rural violence and
horror. Virgil’s Ec/ogues, especially the first and ninth, leave a moving
imprint of a small farmer’s suffering. But the tiniest holdings were
eventually exempted, and so, often, were the largest: in particular,
senators’ estates were excluded; and, as in most of the cities some veferes
possessores managed to hold on to their property, one may assume that the
most influential local citizens often secured exemption. That left a great
range of the middling well-off who were dispossessed, some who farmed
at not much more than subsistence level, others who were quite wealthy
people with slaves and fine villas. Their holdings were replaced by the
standardized chequer-boards of the new allotments, usually it seems of
up to 50 éagera for an ordinary soldier and perhaps 100 ‘ugera or more for
an officer. Eighteen cities turned out to be too few, and perhaps as many
as forty were eventually involved. The most usual method was to extend
the confiscations into the territory of a neighbouring town, as, famously,
into Virgil’s Mantua when nearby Cremona could offer too little land:
“Mantua, vae miserae nimium vicina Cremonae’.5°

It all came at a time when Italy was anyway torn by famine, as Sextus
grew stronger and his fleet prevented the vital corn-ships from coming
to port. (Ahenobarbus’ and Murcus’ ships were doing the same, though
still acting independently of Sextus.) Unsurprisingly there were violent
protests, from landowners, from the magnates in the country-towns,
from the urban plebs, even from the veterans themselves: they were
becoming anxious at the slow pace of the settlement, and also concerned
to protect the holdings of their own families and those of their dead
comrades. There was soon rioting throughout Italy, with clashes
between the new colonists and those they threatened; armed bands were
roving the countryside. It was to take years for the disorder to settle.5!

Antony’s brother L. Antonius was consul in 41, and far from helping
Octavian he served as a rallying-point for the discontented. Initially he
was perhaps opposed by Antony’s wife Fulvia,52 but she soon lent her

© Virg. Eel. tx.28. On the settlements cf. esp. Gabba 1970 (B 55) lix-Ixviii, 1971 (c 93); Brunt
1971 (Ag) 290-1, 294-300, 328-31, 342-4; Schneider 1977 (D 231) 213-28; Keppie 1983 (E65) 5869,
87-133, and (on Cremona) 190-2.

51 App. BCiv. tv.25.104 (43/2 B.C.), v.18.72—-3 (now), 132.547 (still in 36 B.c.); Dio xLv1t1.9.4-5,
XLIX.15.1; cf. esp. Gabba 1970 (B 55) Ixvi, Brunt 1971 (A 9) 291.

52 App. BCiv. v.19.75; cf. Plut. Aas. 30.1. But the role of Fulvia remains hard to estimate; she was
dead by the time of the Brundisium treaty, and by then, as Dio xtvim1.28.3 shrewdly remarks, it was
in everyone’s interest to blame her for the war.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PERUSIA, 41—40 B.C. 15

full support. To the dispossessed they urged resistance in the name of
liberty and the established laws.53 Perhaps we need not take their own
commitment to freedom too seriously, but it is interesting that they
thought the slogans worth airing; and, indeed, old republicans were
regularly to find Antony’s cause more appealing than Octavian’s.55 The
veterans were encouraged to believe that all would be well once Antony
returned: their debt of duty to the great man became another slogan. L.
Antonius even, rather absurdly, took the cognomen Pietas.%6 There were
charges, too, that Octavian was favouring his own veterans above
Antony’s in the distributions, and demands that the Antonian settle-
ments should be supervised by Antony’s own partisans.57 The charges
seem to have been conspicuously untrue: the Antonian colonies turned
out to be the more numerous and the more strategically based.5* But
Octavian still felt it best to accede to the demand for Antonian
commissioners, whatever might have been said at Philippi about his
freedom to organize the settlement as he chose. That agreement of
Philippi was indeed looking increasingly frail. The other Antonian
marshals were less blatant than the consul Antonius, but they too were
adding to the tension. Calenus never gave the promised two legions;
Pollio blocked the route of Salvidienus Rufus as he tried to march with
six legions to Spain.

At first Antony, far off in the East, thought it best to send no clear
response, though he certainly knew what was going on. Everyone made
sure of that, with Octavian sending confidential messengers and the
colonies too taking care that their plight was known.* He had probably
not planned or encouraged the troubles himself: it was a nice judgment
whether he really stood to gain more than lose by the exchanges. Now he
might naturally relish Octavian’s embarrassment, but he could hardly
come out openly against him; Octavian after all was merely pursuing his
part of a shared bargain. Besides, Antony could not let his own veterans
down, or allow Octavian to win more of their gratitude. He might need
them again soon. A studied vagueness about his own views would
indeed make sense, allowing him to exploit the outcome whichever way
it went: there were times in antiquity when the slowness and unreliability
of communications could be useful. But the consequences were very
unfortunate. Unsure of his wishes, confused by various reports and

3 App. BCw. v.19.74, 30.118, 39.159-61, 43.179-80; cf. Dio xtvi.13.6; Suet. Aug. 12.1
(misdating).

* For a different view, Gabba 1971 (C 93) 146-50; Roddaz 1988 (c 201).

55 Some indeed fought for Antonius and died when Perusia fell: Roddaz 1988 (c 201) 339-41.

56 EJ? 7, Dio xivint.5.4 cf. Wallmann 1989 (c 243) 82-4.

57 App. BCw. v.14.55; Dio xivi1.14.4; cf. Keppie 1983 (E 65) 59-60.

58 Keppie 1983 (£ 65) 66-7.

% App. BC. v.21.83, 52.216, 60.251; cf. Dio xivitt.27.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

16 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

missives,©° his supporters in Italy were bewildered. Just as on several
occasions in 44 and 43, army officers and the veterans themselves pressed
for a compromise,°! and so did two senatorial embassies to L. Antonius;
but in the summer of 41 it came to war.

L. Antonius occupied Rome with an army, then marched north,
hoping to link with Pollio and Ventidius. Operations in Etruria were
complex and confused, but in the autumn L. Antonius was forced into
Perusia and besieged by Octavian, Agrippa and Salvidienus Rufus. Still
unsure of Antony’s wishes, Pollio and Ventidius decided not to
intervene. Plancus, arriving from the south, made the same choice. That
made thirteen Antonian legions which stood by, inactive; L. Antonius
himself had no more than eight.®2 The siege wore on, bitterly. Both sides
occupied idle moments by adding obscene graffiti to their sling-bullets,
musing on Antonius’ baldness, Octavian’s backside, and Fulvia’s private
parts; Octavian himself wrote some peculiarly rude elegiacs at Fulvia’s
expense.®3 The city eventually fell, amid scenes of dreadful bloodshed, in
the early spring of 40. L. Antonius’ veterans were spared: interestingly,
their old comrades on Octavian’s side interceded for them. Antonius
himself was received honourably by Octavian, and indeed was sent to
govern Spain (he died soon afterwards). Fulvia was allowed to flee to
Athens. The ordinary dwellers of Perusia were not so fortunate. All the
town-councillors except one were killed. Octavian’s enemies soon
elaborated the story, with talk of a human sacrifice of 300 senators and
knights at the altar of Divus Iulius;65 but the unembroidered truth was
horrifying enough. The city itself was given over to Octavian’s troops to
plunder, and it burnt to the ground. A few years later the Umbrian
Propertius chose to conclude his first book of witty love elegies with a
disquieting and unexpected coda, two short stark poems on the suffering
of the Perusine war (1.21, 22).

If a generation before Pompey had seemed an adulescentulus carnufex,
Octavian was surely emerging as his equal. But he had not let the
veterans down, and he had emphatically established his control of Italy.
Soon, indeed, he would seem master of the entire West, when Calenus
died in the summer of 4o and he swiftly occupied Gaul as well. Calenus’
legions seem to have come over fairly readily, and so did two legions of
Plancus in Italy. Perhaps they felt Octavian was now the more reliable
champion of their interests.

6 Cf. App. BCiv. v.29.112 (a letter which Appian sensed might have been forged), 31.120.

61 App. BCiv. v.20.79-23-94-

62 App. BCw. v.50.208, cf. 24.95, 29.114-30.115; Brunt 1971 (A 9) 494-6.

63 ILLRP 1106-18; cf. Hallett 1977 (c 109). Mart. x1.20 quotes Octavian’s verses.

6 App. BCiv. v.46.196-47.200.

65 Suet. Aug. 15.1; cf. Dio xivin.14.4: but App. BCiv. v.48.201—2 makes clear that senators and

knights were spared. In general, Harris 1971 (E 55) 301-2.
& Cf. Dio xLvitt.20.3; Aigner 1974 (C 3) 113.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BRUNDISIUM, 40-39 B.C. 17

No wonder Antony was concerned. He hurried back to Italy in the
midsummer of 40; and he arrived in some strength.

V. BRUNDISIUM AND MISENUM, 40-39 B.C.

As relations had worsened, both Antony and Octavian had thought of
wooing Sextus to their side. He was indeed worth wooing: Murcus had
recently joined him, and Sextus’ combined fleet now numbered some-
thing like 250 ships.6? Now, in the summer of 40, Octavian married
Scribonia, the sister of Sextus’ associate and father-in-law L. Scribonius
Libo. But Sextus was always particularly distrustful of Octavian, and
preferred to look to Antony: indeed, Antony’s mother Iulia had fled
confidently to Sextus after Perusia’s fall, which may suggest that there
was already some secret understanding. Sextus sent a prestigious escort,
including Libo, to accompany her to Antony, and took the opportunity
to offer him an alliance. Antony replied in measured but encouraging
terms: if it came to war with Octavian, he would welcome Sextus as his
ally; if he and Octavian made their peace, he would try to reconcile
Octavian with Sextus as well. The understanding was sufficiently strong
for Sextus to raid the Italian coast in Antony’s support;® and a little later
he occupied Sardinia and displaced Octavian’s governor M. Lurius.

Octavian’s ruthlessness in Italy, and perhaps his uncompromising
response to L. Antonius’ proclamations of freedom, hada further sequel.
Domitius Ahenobarbus was also persuaded by the consul Pollio to join
Antony, and his seventy ships joined Antony’s two hundred as they
sailed towards Brundisium. The alignments of early 43 had been
paradoxically reversed. Republicans and Antony, with Sextus in the
background, now stood together to confront the isolated Octavian;
Brundisium might well turn out a Mutina in reverse, except that both
Antony and Octavian were now much stronger. But, as in 43 but this
time before serious bloodshed, Antony and Octavian were to find it
prudent to come to terms.

There was some initial military activity. Brundisium, guarded by five
of Octavian’s legions, would not admit Antony’s fleet, and was laid
under siege; meanwhile Sextus was still continuing his raids on the coast.
Octavian sent Agrippa to the town’s aid, and himself swiftly followed;
his troops were numerically superior® but reluctant, and some of them
turned back. There was some skirmishing; Antony had the better of it.
But by now deputations of each army were urging compromise, and it
was not at all clear that either side would fight. The two men’s friends
began to discuss terms, with Maecenas negotiating for Octavian, Pollio

67 App. BCiv. v.25.100; Vell. Pat. 1.77.3.
68 Dio xLvitt.20.1—2, clearly dating to midsummer.. 69 Brunt 1971 (A 9) 497.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

18 1. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

for Antony, and L. Cocceius Nerva as something of a neutral. Lepidus,
unsurprisingly, was not represented. (He had been notably ineffectual in
Italy during the Perusine War, and by now he was out of the way in
Africa.) Thus was reached the Treaty of Brundisium (September 40).

The agreement closely duplicated the compact of Philippi, except for
the important change that followed from Calenus’ death. Octavian’s
occupation of Gaul was now recognized; he was also to have IIlyricum.
Antony was no longer simply entrusted with the organization of the
East, he was also recognized as its master. The division of the world was
correspondingly neater, with Antony controlling the East and Octavian
the West: Scodra in Illyria was given unprecedented prominence as the
dividing-point of the dominions. Lepidus might retain Africa, for what
that was worth. Antony was to avenge Crassus by carrying through the
Parthian War, Octavian to assert his claim to Sardinia and Sicily by
expelling Sextus — unless (an interesting qualification) Sextus came to
some agreement. There was also to be an amnesty for republican
supporters. The consulships for the next few years were allocated; there
was also a reallocation of legions, with Antony receiving some recom-
pense for Calenus’ army.”

This division of East and West was less clear-cut than it appeared. For
instance, eastern as well as western states could address petitions to
Octavian, and Octavian could answer them with authority;”! he even
sent évroAai, a ‘commission’ (the Latin mandata), to Antony to restore
loot to Ephesus.’2 But, rough though it was, the division had momen-
tous consequences. First, Antony faced a more exclusively eastern
future. If it came to war, he could no longer think of fighting the
campaign of 49 over again, descending from the Alps as a new lulius
Caesar into a quavering Italy. Secondly, Octavian’s position in Italy was
a priceless asset. In 42 it might have seemed an embarrassment, with all
those veterans to settle; but he had ridden that storm. Italy was now
supposed to be shared by both men, open to each for his recruiting. But
Octavian was there, Antony was not. It proved steadily more possible
for Octavian to pose as the defender of Roman and Italian traditions
against the monstrous portent of a degenerate Antony, declining into
eastern weakness and eastern ways. The control of Italy, in 42 a sign of
Octavian’s inferiority, became an important element in his final success.

The new accord of Antony and Octavian was confirmed by a further

70 Cf. App. BCi. v.66.279, with Gabba 1970 (B 55) ad /oc.; Brunt 1971 (A 9) 498.

11 Cf. the correspondence with Rhosus (EJ? 301, RDGE 58) and with Ephesus, Samos and
Aphrodisias (Reynolds 1982 (B 270) docs. 10, 12, and probably 6 and (if correctly dated and
interpreted) 13, with pp. 39-40); Millar 1973 (c 175), esp. 36; Badian 1984 (B 208).

72 Reynolds 1982 (B 270) doc. 12; Millar 1973 (c 175) 36. At Antony and Cleopatra 1.1.20-2
Cleopatra spoke truer than Shakespeare knew: ‘Fulvia perchance is angry; or who knows If the
scarce-bearded Caesar have not sent His powerful mandate to you: “Do this, or this ...”.’

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BRUNDISIUM, 40-39 B.C. 19

bond, one which was to add richness to the latter romantic legend.
Antony was now a widower, Fulvia having conveniently died in Greece.
Octavia, the sober sister of Octavian, was to be his new bride. The great
dynastic marriage was to seal the union of the dominions. There was no
need to complicate the matter with any thoughts of Cleopatra.

Italy rejoiced at the treaty. It is probably wrong to connect Virgil’s
Fourth Eclogue with this: it was more likely written earlier, in the
miserable days of late 41, and was designed to greet Pollio as he entered
his consulship on the first day of 4o. But more mundane celebration is
clear enough. On 12 October the magistrates of Casinum erected a
monument to mark the accord, a signum Concordiae.73 Coins too were
struck in celebration, one for instance showing a head of Concordia and
two hands around a caduceus (a symbol of concord) with the inscription
M.ANTON.C.CAESAR.IMP.” Both Antony and Octavian celebrated
ovationes as they entered Rome a few weeks later. But the festivities again
swiftly soured. For one thing, the impoverished triumvirs again
imposed unprecedented taxes.75 Just as serious, Sextus - who could
reasonably feel let down by the treaty’s terms — was maintaining his
pressure. There was fighting in Sardinia within a few weeks of the
accord, with Octavian’s general Helenus recapturing the island, then in
his turn expelled by Sextus’ admiral Menodorus. Sextus had by now
taken over Corsica as well, and penetrated to Gaul and Africa;’6 and his
blockade of the Italian corn-ships was more effective than ever. By
November Rome was again reduced to famine, and Antony and
Octavian were confronted by violent popular riots. Both men also had
troubles of their own, and the atmosphere was heavy with strain and
suspicion. Antony executed his agent Manius, who had been very active
in the Perusine War. Still more striking, Octavian recalled his general
Salvidienus Rufus from Gaul, and had him killed. This extraordinary
man had been consul designate for the following year, the first man since
Pompey to be awarded a consulship before even entering the Senate:
now his fall was just as abrupt. It was said that he had been plotting with
Antony earlier in the year — indeed, that Antony frankly admitted it.
That strains belief; but the truth is wholly elusive.”

Salvidienus’ killing was prepared by the passing of the senatus consultum
ultimum. The triumvirs’ own extraordinary position was itself sufficient
to authorize such emergency action; but, as usual with the s.c.w., it was
moral rather than legal justification which was really in point. The
Senate’s moral backing was still worth having, and this was one of
several occasions when the triumvirs paraded a certain constitutiona-

73 ILLRP 562a. 74 RRC 527-9, especially 529.44; cf. Wallmann 1989 (C 243) 80-2.
7 App. BCiv. v.67.282 with Gabba’s note; Dio xLviit.3 1, XLVHI. 34.2; ef. Nicolet 1976 (D 104) 95.
76 App. BCiv. v.67.280; Dio xtvitt.30. 77 Syme 1939 (A 93) 220 and n. 6.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

20 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

lism. For instance, Octavia’s marriage to Antony was technically
difficult, for she had not completed the legal term of mourning after the
death of her first husband, Marcellus: a dispensation was scrupulously
secured from the Senate.” And Herod was to be recognized as king of
Judaea: Antony and Octavian had agreed it ~ but the formal decision was
deferred to the Senate, with Antony himself joining in the debate; a
solemn procession to the Capitol followed, led by the consuls.”? At some
time during 39 the triumvirs also secured a senatorial decree to ratify all
their past and future acts: constitutionalism again, though of a rather
quizzical kind. Like L. Antonius two years earlier, they evidently felt
that traditionalist public sentiment was worth impressing.

But peace would surely impress people more. The Brundisium agree-
ment had explicitly envisaged the possibility of coming to terms with
Sextus as well. But it was not clear if Sextus himself would agree: there
seems to have been some difference of view among his supporters, who
were very disparate. The pirate-admiral Menodorus, we are told, pressed
Sextus to continue the war, Staius Murcus and others took the opposite
view; and here too the issues were fogged by suspicion, with Sextus by
now deeply distrustful of Murcus. Murcus duly died, mysteriously. But
Sextus still saw the force of his advice: he himself had always been realistic
about his chances in a full-scale war. There was a preliminary meeting of
negotiators at Aenaria in spring, 39. Scribonius Libo, once again
emerging in a context of conciliation, represented Sextus. Octavian,
Sextus and Antony then met at Cape Misenum in full summer, perhaps as
late as August,®! and terms were agreed. Sextus was to retain Corsica as
well as Sicily and Sardinia, and take the Peloponnese as well; he was to
hold this dominion for five years. Consulships were agreed for every year
till 32: Libo was promised 34 and Sextus 33, just after the expiry of his
quinquennium. For the present, he could have an augurship. In return
for all this, he was to raise his blockade of Italy and remove his troops, to
undertake to build no more ships and to receive no more runaway slaves,
to guarantee Rome’s corn supply, and to ‘keep the sea free of pirates’. His
supporters were to be allowed to return to Italy, with an amnesty for the
proscribed: they were to receive some compensation for their vanished
property. His slave supporters were to be freed, and his free soldiers were
to receive the same rewards on retirement as those of the triumvirs. These
last concessions were ones that Antony and Octavian were doubtless
very ready to grant: they would placate many of Sextus’ supporters, and,

78 Plut. Ant. 31.5; cf. Buchheim 1960 (c 49) 40-1.

79 Joseph. BJ 1.282-5, AJ x1v.381-5. Other grants too were made by the Senate: freedom, it
seems, for Stratoniceia, Miletus and Aphrodisias—Plarasa (Reynolds 1982 (B 270) doc. 8).

8 App. BCi. v.75.318; Dio x:vi.34.1; Reynolds 1982 (B 270) doc. 8 with p. 39: cf. Millar 1973
(c 175) 33-4. 81 Reynolds 1982 (B 270) 70-1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE EAST, 39-37 B.C. 21

if it came again to war, he would not find it easy to recall them to arms.®?
There was also some more constitutionalist talk, this time more grandly
of ‘restoring the Republic’: in eight years’ time, perhaps.®3

The agreement was celebrated by a banquet on Sextus’ galley — orice
again rich material for later legend, with tales of the swashbuckling
Menodorus eyeing the cable and thinking of cutting it, to make Sextus
master of the world.#4 The agreement was indeed a precarious one,
though for less romantic reasons — largely because it diminished and
threatened Octavian distinctly more than Antony. It also freed Antony
to return to the East. He left Rome shortly after 2 October 39,
accompanied by Octavia.85 He was not to see the city again.

VI. THE EAST, 39-37 B.C.

During the summer of 39 news from the East had been reaching Rome.
It was astoundingly good. A year earlier Antony had despatched
Ventidius to try to recover Asia Minor: and it seems that Ventidius
took Labienus by surprise, forced him to flee eastwards, and finally
trapped and defeated him near the Taurus range, perhaps at the Cilician
Gates (midsummer 39). Labienus himself fled to Cilicia, but was
overtaken there and presumably killed. Later in the summer Ventidius
won another great victory at Mt Amanus over Phranipates, the satrap of
the newly conquered Syria. Phranipates was killed, and the rest of the
Parthian forces fell back beyond the Euphrates. Ventidius had done
magnificently, and by the autumn of 39 it was already time for the Senate
to reward certain states for their resistance to Labienus — Stratoniceia,
Aphrodisias-Plarasa, and (now or a little later) Miletus.8? The war
seemed over. Indeed, there was uncomfortably little left for Antony to
do himself.

Still, after spending the winter in Athens he prepared to depart
eastwards in the spring of 38. There were a few preliminaties to take care
of. The Parthian evacuation made this a sensible time to reorganize some
parts of the East, at least provisionally; this time he concentrated on a
great swathe from north to south of central Asia Minor. Twenty-five
years earlier Pompey had ascribed a considerable tract of western Pontus
to Bithynia, but allowed control to remain largely with the cities he had
fostered: Antony now reversed the process, weakening the cities and

8 Ic is suggestive that the offer of compensation was made directly to the proscribed, and was
apparently more acceptable to them than to Sextus: App. BCiv. v.71.301-2.

8 App. BCw. v.73.313.- * Plut. Ant. 32; cf. App. BCs. v.73.310; Dio x-vinr.38.

§5 Reynolds 1982 (B 270) doc. 8 line 26, with her commentary.

5% On the date, Pelling 1988 (B 138) 206; Wallmann 1989 (c 243) 234.

87 Stratoniceia: RDGE 27. Aphrodisias-Plarasa: Reynolds 1982 (3 270) docs. 8 and 9, cf. doc. 6
lines 28-9, 10 line 2, with her commentary. Miletus: Miéle/ 1 3 nr. 126 lines 23-5 with pp. 252-3,

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

22 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

establishing a new strong kingdom of Pontus.®8 It was to be ruled by
Darius, a descendant of Mithridates Eupator. Deiotarus of Galatia had
died, and his possessions in Pontus were assigned to Darius; however,
Deiotarus’ grandson Castor was recognized as king of Galatia, and he
was also allowed the interior of Paphlagonia.®° So far Antony was
following the traditional Roman policy of supporting kings from the old
regal families; thus also Lysanias was confirmed as king of Ituraea.% And
so far he was not especially concerned with rewarding past loyalties:
Lysanias for one had taken the Parthian side.! But he also had new, able
favourites of his own. Amyntas, once Deiotarus’ secretary, was given
Pisidia; Polemo of Laodicea-ad-Lycum, whose father Zeno was one of
the few who resisted Labienus, received a dominion combining the
western part of Cilicia with some parts of Lycaonia.% Like Ituraea and
parts of Pontus, these were rough, unpacified regions: the new kings
evidently had work to do. It was also probably now that Cleopatra was
given Cyprus and a region of eastern Cilicia: she too perhaps had a task,
for Cilicia and Cyprus were peculiarly rich in timber, and she was
presumably to build ships to replenish Antony’s fleet.23 Herod of Judaea
also received some further backing. Ventidius and his lieutenant
Poppaedius Silo had apparently not tried very hard to displace the rival
claimant Antigonus for the throne:™ he had more pressing concerns.
Stronger support could now be given. It seems that Antony began,
rather oddly, by recognizing Herod as ‘king of the Idumaeans and
Samarians’: possibly he acknowledged that Jerusalem was for the
moment beyond recovery, and granted him this new title in provisional
compensation.

It was also now that Antony entered on a new religious policy, and
began to insist more emphatically on his identification with Dionysus:%
a god of liberation and eastern conquest, of course, as well as of vitality
and exhilarating release. In Athens, he was duly celebrated as Beds Néos

Magie 1950 (E 85 3) 1282 n. 15. If Reynolds 1982 (B270) doc. 7 refers to the Labienus war (cf. lines 3-4
with her commentary), rewards were also voted to Rhodes, Lycia, Laodicea and Tarsus. On the
campaign in general cf. Sherwin-White 1984 (A 89) 303-4.

88 App. BC. v.75.319; cf. esp. Buchheim 1960 (C 49) 49-31; Hoben 1969 (£ 840) 34-9.

8 Cf. esp. Hoben 1969 (E 840) 116-19. % Cf. Dio x.Ix.32.5; Buchheim 1960 (c 49) 18-19.

1 Joseph. AJ xtv.330, BJ 1.248.

2 App. BCi. v.75.319 with Gabba 1970 (B 55) ad /oc.; on the date, Buchheim 1960 (c 49) 51-2.
The realm extended as far as Iconium (Strab. x11.5.3—6.2 ($68C)); cf. Mitford 1980 (E 860) 1242. For
Zeno’s resistance to Labienus cf. Strab. x1v.2.24-5 (660C).

% Cf. Joseph. AJ xtv.392-7, 406, BJ 1.288—92, 297; Buchheim 1960 (c 49) 67.

* Strab. xtv.3.2—3 (669C), 671, 685: cf. R. Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean
World (Oxford, 1982) 117. On the date cf. the inscription published by Pouilloux 1972 (c 189),
attesting an Egyptian orparnyds of ‘Cyprus and Cilicia’ in 38-7; Mitford 1980 (£ 860) 1293-4.

% App. BCiw. v.75.319 with Gabba 1970 (B 55) ad /oc.; Buchheim 1960 (c 49) 66—7.

% Dio xtvii.39.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE EAST, 39-37 B.C. 23

Atdvuaos, in 39/8,” and he and Octavia were hailed as Qeot Evepyerai.%
There were even perhaps hints of a divine marriage between Antony-
Dionysus and the city’s goddess Athena;% he issued cistophori represent-
ing himself as Dionysus;!© and stories were later told about his
extravagant Dionysiac displays ~ a platform above the theatre, decorated
with Dionysiac tambourines and fawnskins, where he drank with his
friends all day; then torchlit Dionysiac processions to the Acropolis.10!
Some of the detail is surely fantastic, but the general policy makes sense.
His future now more clearly lay in the East; eastern states often
worshipped their rulers; and he would be the greatest master of all.
Divinity was the only comfortable status.

In spring 38 Antony made a rapid visit to Brundisium, where
Octavian had invited him for talks about the worsening situation in
Italy; but Octavian did not arrive. Antony issued a public letter of
rebuke, and crossly sailed back. This irritating distraction must have
delayed his departure to the East (that may even, in part, have been
Octavian’s intention), but Antony still reached Syria, with an army, by
midsummer. He arrived to discover that Ventidius’ triumphs had
continued. The winter of 39/8 had been spent in consolidation: there was
little sign, for instance, of any more energetic support for Herod, who
had returned to Judaea during the summer and linked with Silo’s troops.
By the autumn he was encamped against Jerusalem, but Silo was still
unco-operative, and his army soon scattered to its winter billets. In the
spring Ventidius recalled Silo to Syria, anticipating a further attack from
Pacorus. It soon came, but Ventidius had time to occupy a strong
position at Gindarus, north east of Antioch in the Cyrrhestica region of
Syria. As at the Cilician Gates the previous year, the Parthians attacked
rashly; as at Mt Amanus, their leader fell, and they were wholly routed.102
Ventidius most effectively brought many of the Syrian cities over by
sending around Pacorus’ head on a stake.

Now there was little left to do. It was even possible to support Herod
more openly, and Ventidius sent two legions and 1,000 cavalry to his
help. (They turned out to be notably ineffective.) Otherwise there was
only a pocket of resistance in Commagene, whose wealthy king

9 IG 1? 1043. 22-3. % Agora inscription published by Raubitschek 1946 (F 202) 146-50.

% Dio xLvi11.39.2; Sen. Suas. 1.6.7 (the story has evidently been embroidered, but probably has at
least some basis). It need not follow that Octavia herself was regarded as Athena incarnate, as
Raubitschek 1946 (F 202) thought.

100 Cf. especially Mannsperger 1973 (C 171) 384-6. Here Dionysiac types were admittedly
standard: Crawford 1974 (B 319) 1743 0.4. "©! Socrates of Rhodes, FGrH 192 F 2.

1a2 Dio x11x.19-20 with Reinhold 1988 (8 150) ad /oc.; cf. Sherwin-White 1984 (a 89) 304-6. The
similarities to the events of 39 are in fact suspicious, and the same stories may have been used by
historians for two different campaigns. But it is likely enough that Ventidius tried to repeat his
waiting game, and just possible that Pacorus fell into the trap.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

24 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

Antiochus was recalcitrant, refusing to surrender the Parthian survivors
who had fled to him. Ventidius besieged him in Samosata, then Antony
arrived to take over the campaign. Antiochus was eager to negotiate, but
Antony refused; yet the siege proved more difficult than he expected, and
he later, rather ingloriously, accepted terms.!® Ventidius returned to
Rome, and celebrated the triumph he richly deserved on 27 November
38; he died a little later, and was given a state funeral. Antony returned to
Athens, where he spent the winter of 38/7. He had little more to fear
from the Parthians in Asia Minor; it might even be time to think of
carrying the war into Parthia itself, the richest way of winning glory that
could be imagined. But first events in the West were again calling for
attention.

VII. TARENTUM, 37 B.C.

The pact of Misenum was fragile. Antony, now a wary ally of both
Sextus and Octavian, was the man who could preserve it: but he was
soon away in the East, and the uneasy division of the West between
Sextus and Octavian began to show strain. Signs of a rift emerged only a
few months after the pact, when in autumn 39 Octavian divorced
Scribonia, the bride he had married when courting Sextus’ favour the
previous year. (A few months later he married Livia instead: a love-
match, perhaps, as people said! — but she certainly linked him to
another great clan, and that was not imprudent.) And the Italian famine
continued, with pirates continuing to ravage the shore of Campania and
harry the grain ships: Octavian publicly blamed Sextus. Antony too was
contributing to the instability, prevaricating about the surrender of the
Peloponnese to Sextus. During the winter of 39/8 matters came to a
head. Sextus’ admiral Menodorus went over to Octavian and gave him
control of Sardinia and Corsica, three legions and sixty ships. War
between Octavian and the outraged Sextus naturally followed, and in
spring 38 there were two great sea-battles, one off the coast of Cumae
near Naples and one in the Straits of Messana. Both were considerable
victories for Sextus, but he still followed his distinctive defensive policy,
and did not press home his advantage. Octavian retired safely to
Campania.

Antony must have heard of this with mixed feelings. He will not have
been dismayed to see Sextus and Octavian assiduously weakening one
another; but one of them might win, and an undisputed master of the

103 Plut. Ant. 34.5—7. The terms clearly gave the city over to the Romans (Joseph. 4J x1v.447, BJ
1.322; Oros. v1.18.23). Cf. Sherwin-White 1984 (A 89) 306 and n.24.
104 Suet. Aug. 62.2 with Carter 1982 (B 24) ad oc.; Dio xiviit.34.3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

TARENTUM, 37 B.C. 25

West was a disconcerting prospect. Before the two battles in the spring
of 38, he had been worried enough to make the journey back to
Brundisium, despite his urgency to move to the eastern front; at this
point he was still pressing Octavian to avoid a breach with Sextus.'05
Octavian had then avoided a meeting, but after his defeats stood in much
greater need of Antony’s support. In Autumn 38 Octavian sent Maece-
nas to seek a pledge of help against Sextus. We are told that Antony gave
it;!06 and indeed the odds now favoured Sextus, so that moderate aid to
Octavian might seem the best way to preserve the balance of power. But
Antony’s pledge doubtless carried its conditions, and relations were very
strained.

Octavian had further problems too. There had been trouble in Gaul
since the previous year, which had culminated in a full-scale revolt in
Aquitania. By the end of 38 this had been dealt with by Agrippa, but this
merely replaced one embarrassment with another: Agrippa’s glory
contrasted too obviously with Octavian’s own defeats, and Agrippa
tactfully went without a triumph.!°? And Octavian’s control of Italy was
not beyond reproach. Public life was unusually disordered, with a
shortage of candidates for some offices, while in other cases magistrates
were hastening to resign their offices: in 38 there were no less than sixty-
seven praetors.!° And the popular riots were continuing, including
some support of a new favourite, a certain M. Oppius. Predictably, he
soon died.1 Any pretence of normality was wearing very thin.

Another meeting was clearly needed. Antony sailed for Italy in early
spring 37: he was accompanied by 300 ships. The menace was unmistak-
able. Perhaps he claimed he was coming to help Octavian against
Sextus;!!0 if so, he was naturally disbelieved, and it seems that the
townsfolk of Brundisium refused to admit the fleet.!11 Bewildered and
nervous, they doubtless trusted that Octavian would applaud them.
Antony sailed to Tarentum instead, and Octavian travelled there to meet
him. Lepidus was again unrepresented. Negotiations were slow, and it
was perhaps lateJuly or August before agreement was reached.!!2 The
questions were indeed delicate: it was certainly not clear that it was in

105 App. BCiv. v.79.336. 106 So App. BCiv. v.92.386.

107 Dio xiviit.49.2-3; cf. App. BCiv. v.75.318, 92.386.

1088 Dio xLviit.43.1~3, Cf. XLVIII.5 3.1-3, XLIX.16.2, XLIX.43.7; Frei-Stolba 1967 (c 92) 83.

109 Dio xLviit.43.1, XLVIII.5 3.4-6; App. BCi. tv.41.172-3.

"10 So App. BCi. v.93.386—95.398. For the divergences between this account and Plut. Aat. 35.1
and Dio xivirt.54 cf. Pelling 1988 (B 138) 213-14. "1 Plut. Apt. 35.1.

112 The treaty is normally put a little later, in September or October, but the grounds for this are
slight. A July/August date would be late enough to rule out a resumption of the Parthian War until
36 (cf. Plut. Ast. 35.8); Octavian’s delay of the war against Sextus (App. BCiv. v.95.396) was
probably one of the treaty’s terms, and tells nothing of its date. It is hard to think that even
protracted negotiations would have dragged on into September.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

26 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

Antony’s interests to support Octavian at all emphatically against
Sextus. The mediation of Octavia, it was said, was crucial!!3 — possibly
romantic fiction once again, but she may indeed have played a part.

Finally Antony agreed to back Octavian against Sextus, who was
stripped of his priesthood and his promised consulship. Octavian was to
carry through the war, but it was agreed that he should delay his attack
on Sextus to the following year: it was doubtless Antony who pressed for
this, for it offered him the hope of synchronizing his invasion of Parthia
with this further war in Italy. The propaganda possibilities were clear:
while Sextus and Octavian were refusing to let the civil wars die, Antony
would be doing what Roman generals should always have done,
advancing the empire and spilling foreign blood. It was all to work out
rather differently. They further agreed that Octavian would give Antony
20,000 men and 1,000 elite troops in return for 120 men-of-war and ten
skiffs.114 The deal made sense, for Octavian vitally needed reinforce-
ments for the fleet which Sextus had damaged so badly, while Antony
had recently been unable to recruit Italian troops. But, from his
viewpoint, there was one drawback. He left the ships there and then.
Octavian merely promised the troops. They never came.

There was a further problem, of a constitutional sort. The triumvirate
had formally expired at the end of 38, leaving the triumvirs’ position
uncomfortably vague. Probably nobody knew whether their power was
now illegal. The triumvirate was an irregular magistracy: to which
regular magistracy should it be regarded as analogous? To the consul-
ship, which had a fixed term of one year, but formally ended when the
consuls abdicated their office on the last day? On the one hand, the term
had passed; on the other, the triumvirs had not abdicated.!!5 Or perhaps
it was closer to a provincial governorship, normally assigned by senatus
consultum, which continued until a successor was appointed and arrived?
Here there were no successors. In some ways the vast task rei publicae
constituendae \eft the triumvirs more closely analogous to a dictator, who
was similarly appointed for a specified purpose and held his office until
he abdicated on completion of the task: now the res publica was certainly
not yet constituta. But the early, traditional dictatorship had also had a
maximum duration of six months, and that had been scrupulously
observed:!16 what would have happened had a dictator outstayed that

13, App. BCiv.93.390-1, 96.397; Dio xvuit.5 4.3; and especially Plut. Ant. 35. Wallmann 1989 (c
243) 181—2 thus explains Octavia’s prominence on coins of 37—36 celebrating the accord (CRR 1256,
1262, 1266).

ina hee BCiv. v.95.396~7; cf. (with slightly different, less credible numbers) Plut. Azt. 35.7;
Brunt 1971 (A 9) 502.

15 The constitutional puzzle certainly exercised the minds of contemporaries: cf. the elaborate
treatment of similar issues at Livy, 1.36.9, 38.1, 54-56 (decemvirs not laying down their office

when their term expired; the decemvirate was an irregular magistracy like the triumvirate); 1x. 33—4
(similar behaviour by a censor). "6 Cf. Mommsen 1887 (a 65) 11.13 161.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE YEAR 36 B.C. 27

period? No one knew. Admittedly, the more recent (and very uneasy)
precedents of Sulla and Caesar furnished a dictatorship without any such
legal maximum term."!” But those dictatorships had been voted in those
terms, without any time-limitation. Now it was precisely the specifica-
tion of a limit which differentiated the triumvirate: how crucial was this
difference, and who was to say? Perhaps the closest analogy was to those
few provincial commands assigned by /ex rather than s.¢., such as
Caesar’s command in Gaul. That had carried a fixed term — but the events
of 51-50 had shown that the legal implications of its expiry were tangled
and unclear. Were further confusion required, it was offered by the
triumvirs’ provincial commands. They had assigned these to themselves
by virtue of their triumviral powers, but had also had them ratified by
5.¢.; it was not at all clear that their provincial imperium lapsed when their
triumviral powers lapsed.!!8 The analogy with a regular ‘proconsul,
assigned a province by s.¢., was close.

In short, the legal position was hopelessly confused. Perhaps it did not
matter very much: the realities of power were clear enough. But the
events of 51-50 had shown that legal issues could be important, at least
in propaganda terms; and, anyway, the triumvirs had recently been
making a show of their constitutionalism. It would certainly be comfor-
table to give their status more clarity. Reassuringly, the triumvirate was
now formally renewed for another five years, very probably to expire on
the last day of 33,119 and a little later this was ratified by the people of
Rome.!20 But the constitutional tangle was to return.

VIII. THE YEAR 36 B.C.

While Antony and Octavian had been engaged at Tarentum, their
lieutenants had been busy. Agrippa, consul in 37, had considerably
strengthened Octavian’s fleet; he had also recruited vast numbers of new
seamen — 20,000 slaves were freed to allow them to serve.!2! Most
impressively of all, he had constructed the portus Iu/ius in Campania by
linking the shallow Lucrine lake by a canal to the much deeper Avernus,
then removing the dyke separating the Lucrine lake from the sea. The
work was completed by two tunnels connecting the Avernus with

"7 Cf. Mommsen 1887 (A 65) 11.19 703~5, 714-16. Caesar’s dictatorship had originally been

annual, then formally extended to ten years and then ‘for life’: MRR 11 272, 285 n.1, 294-5,
305, 317-18. 18 Cf. p. 20 and n.80; Girardet 1990 (c 97). "19 See Endnote pp. 67-8.

120 Thus App. I//, 28.80, ... xai 6 Sijpos éexexupdxes. There is no inconsistency here (as is often
suggested) with BC#. v.95.398, where the triumvirs agree the renewal oddév ért rod Srpou
SenOévres. In BCiv. Appian is simply contrasting the procedure in 37 with that of November 43,
when the triumvirs needed a 4x to establish them in office (BCi. 1v.7.27). Their powers now
authorized them (it could be claimed) to renew their own term: it still suited their current policy to

obtain ratification for their acts from the Senate (cf. p. 20 and n. 80) or, as here, the people.
"2 Suet. Aug. 16.1; cf. Brunt 1971 (A 9) 508.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

28 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

Cumae and the beach.'” Sextus had recently been concentrating his
attacks on the Campanian coast:!23 now the tunnels would allow Agrippa
to convey supplies safely, while the double lake would afford a protected
expanse of water for training crews.

In the East, meanwhile, Herod at last received effective aid. C. Sosius,
Antony’s governor of Syria and Cilicia, first subdued the Aradians (a
Syrian people who were still disaffected), then arrived in Palestine. The
war had been dragging on through 38, with Antigonus having much the
better of it; Herod himself had been absent for a good part of the
summer, pressing Antony at Samosata for more energetic help. In late 38
two legions had been sent ahead under Herod’s direct command (a most
irregular procedure): he promptly won a considerable victory at Isana.
The rest of Judaea, except for the capital, quickly fell to him, and in
spring 37 he resumed the siege of Jerusalem itself. Sosius’ new force then
arrived, and in July the city fell, very bloodily.!24 Herod became king;
Antigonus was captured, and when Antony returned to the East he
yielded to Herod’s pressure and had him publicly executed at Antioch.

Herod was not specially loved by his countrymen, but his decisive
victory still added to the stability of the East. What is more, the Parthian
threat seemed to have disappeared. Indeed, there was a new dynastic
crisis within Parthia itself. Orodes abdicated in late 38 or 37, and from his
thirty sons he unwisely selected Phraates as successor, who promptly
killed his father, all his brothers, and his son. The Parthian nobility soon
revolted: the prospects for a Roman invasion had seldom been better.

But there was no time to exploit the crisis in 37: Antony did not arrive
back in the East until autumn. He spent the winter at Antioch,
continuing his new administrative arrangements, and this time the
reorganization was more extensive. In 39 he had already given hints of
what was to come, when he had strengthened the kingdom of Pontus
and begun to favour new men like Amyntas and Polemo. Now these
policies were taken much further, and the East began to fall into a
number of large client kingdoms, each ruled by an efficient and loyal
prince. The newly enlarged kingdom of Pontus would more or less do,
but the king would not; Darius was replaced by Polemo, who in his small
dominion of 39 had evidently proved himself worthy of promotion.'25
Castor in Galatia was similarly replaced. (It is possible that Darius and
Castor had both conveniently died; but the coincidence is suspicious,
and it is more likely that both were deposed.) Castor’s son Deiotarus

12 For the details, Paget 1968 (D 218) 163-9; Roddaz 1984 (C 200) 95-114.

13 Dio xivii.46.1; Strab. v.4.3-5 (243C). 124 For the date, Schiirer 1973 (E 1207) 1.284-6.

128 The territorial extent of Polemo’s realm is not precisely clear, but it was evidently similar to
that of Darius: cf. Hoben 1969 (£ 840) 42-4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE YEAR 36 B.C. 29

Philadelphus was allowed to inherit Paphlagonia,!6 but Galatia passed
to Amyntas;!27 and the realm was greatly expanded, to include parts of
Pamphylia and Polemo’s former domain in Lycaonia.!2 The old
boundaries of Cappadocia would serve adequately, but there had been
dynastic unrest there for years. On Ariobarzanes’ death in 42 the
kingdom should have passed to his brother Ariarathes, a man of dubious
loyalty to Rome; Antony preferred a certain Archelaus Sisines from
Pontic Comana, and probably made his favour clear from the outset.!29
But in 42-41 it was not yet time to overthrow the legitimate heir in
favour of an outsider. By 37-36 Antony’s policy of favouring such men
was more securely established, and Archelaus was duly confirmed as
king.'50 Not that the great kings controlled everything: for instance, the
priest-kings in southern Pontus, at Comana, Megalopolis and Zela, were
retained and strengthened; several other minor princes were created,
Cleon in Mysia, Adiatorix in Heraclea Pontica; in Upper Cilicia Tarcon-
dimotus, a pirate in his youth, was encouraged in his small kingdom."3!
But it was Amyntas, Polemo and Archelaus who along with Herod
would keep Asia Minor safe. It was a wise policy, and Antony chose his
men well. The system, together with most of the individual kings, was to
be continued by Octavian after Antony’s fall: Archelaus, for instance,
reigried for a full fifty years. 132

Another monarch, too, had her realm increased. Cleopatra was given
parts of coastal Phoenicia and Nabataean Arabia, and also the rich
balsam woods around Jericho in Judaea.'33 Lysanias of Ituraea was
executed, and she took over his kingdom along with some adjoining
territory;!>4 perhaps she had her dominion in Cilicia extended, and, now
or earlier, she also became mistress of Crete and Cyrene.155 Not all of this

1% Possibly at first jointly with his elder brother Deiotarus Philopator. Cf. Strab. x11.3.q0-2
(562C); Hoben 1969 (£ 840) 118-19.

127 Strabo. x11.6.2—-7.1 ($69C); Hoben 1969(E 840) 123-4. 128 Cf. Levick 1967 (B 851) 25-6.

19 App. BCiv. v.7.31 (of 41 B.c., ovvémpager és ryv Bactredav: cf. Buchheim 1960 (c 49) 55-6,
observing Appian’s careful phrasing.

130 Dio xLix.32.3: on the date cf. Buchheim 1960 (c 49) 59.

131 Serab. x11. 3.6-8 (43C), 3.33-5 (558C), 3-3 7-8 ($60C), 8.7-9 (5 74C), xIV-5.16—21 (676C), with
Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad /oc.; cf. Magie 1950 (E 853) 435-6, 1240, 1285-7, and on Antony’s policy in
general Bowersock 1965 (C 39) 42-61. 132 Tac. Aan. 11.42.2.

13 Plut. Ant. 36.3-4 and Dio xL1x.32.3—5 agree in placing these grants in 37-36. Joseph. AJ
xV.94~5 appears to place the gifts of parts of Phoenicia, Arabia and Judaea in 34, but he himself
seems to associate these gifts with that of Lysanias’ domain, which certainly belongs in 37~36: he is
clearly combining several different phases of Cleopatra’s past. Cf. for the date Buchheim 1960 (c 49)
69-73; for the Arabian grant Bowersock 1983 (E 990) 40-4; for the balsam woods Schiirer 1973 (£
1207) 198-300.

1% Porphyry FGrH 260 F.2.17; Dio xitx.32.5; Joseph. AJ xv.g2, BJ 1.440. The adjoining
territory probably included Canatha (Joseph. AJ xv.112, BJ 1.366), Hippos and Gadara (Joseph. AJ
xv.217, BJ 1.396); possibly also Damascus, where Cleopatra’s portrait appears on coins (though that
need not be decisive). Cf. Bicknell 1977 (C 29) 339-

135 Dio xLrx.32.5; cf. Grant 1946 (B 322) 55-8; Buttrey 1983 (B 315) 24-7.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

30 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

served Rome’s interests — for instance, now or in 34 both Herod and
Malchus of Arabia leased back from Cleopatra the land she now gained.
The rent was vast, 200 talents apiece: Cleopatra rather than Rome was
clearly the beneficiary of that arrangement. But the grants still fitted
Antony’s policy of strengthening loyal monarchs, and so far nothing
suggests that Antony was favouring her unduly. Amyntas and Polemo
did better out of this reorganization than she did, and indeed Antony
now as later refused to give her parts of Judaea, Phoenicia, Syria and
Arabia which she coveted.'% But he seems to have advertised their union
in other ways. She travelled to meet him in Syria in late 37; in 36 she bore
him another son, Ptolemy Philadelphus. He also acknowledged
paternity of the twins born in 4o. This was not yet clearly a marriage — at
least, not in Roman eyes, though Egyptians themselves may not have
known quite what to make of it.!37 But it was still a scandal, and one
which left Antony peculiarly vulnerable to Octavian’s propaganda. The
Parthian War afforded Antony the chance of a propaganda triumph, one
which might impress Italian sentiment much more than Octavian’s con-
tinuation of the civil war with Sextus.138 That was now compromised.
Why did Antony do it? Perhaps Cleopatra needed her position within
Egypt strengthened (we know little of the internal history of her reign,
but Ptolemies were often insecure on their thrones); but this seems an
extreme method. More likely, Antony was hoping to strengthen his own
position in the East, at least within Egypt itself. This festive connexion
with an eastern queen — almost indeed a sacred marriage of Dionysus-
Osiris and Isis — might be as popular there as it turned out to be
unpopular in Italy. Glamour was important to Cleopatra in articulating
her style of leadership; it was a style which Antony could naturally share;
and eastern support would be crucial if it came to war with Octavian —
that, surely, was already clear. But it is still surprising that he risked
outraging Italian opinion quite so much; was Italy yet such a lost cause?
Perhaps he thought he was doing nothing more outrageous than Caesar
had done; Caesar had even installed Cleopatra at Rome; but Caesar did
not have a master of propaganda to oppose him, and Antony should
have sensed the danger. We rarely see Antony’s political naivety so
clearly, and it does remain quite possible that the personal factor was
indeed important, with Cleopatra leading Antony against his political
judgment. Not that he was infatuated beyond control: his refusal of the
territory she desired is enough to show this; and he was shortly to leave
her again, for a Parthian War which (he must have expected) would keep
them apart for several years. But romance could still have been there.
Still, romance did not impede the preparations for Parthia. The signs

13% Joseph. AJ xv.79, 91-4, 95, 258; cf. 24-5, 74-9.
137 Pelling 1988 (B 138) 219-20. 138 See above, p. 26.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE YEAR 36 B.C. 31

of unrest at the court continued to come; in 37 or early 36 one Monaeses,
from a great Parthian family, arrived with promises of a wider defection
among the nobility. Monaeses’ role is hard to gauge, and possibly he was
playing a double game;'3° still, his news was not implausible, given
Phraates’ barbarity — Parthians might after all be as ready to exploit
Roman help in their internal conflicts as the Roman Labienus had been to
exploit the Parthians. There was obviously much to be said for striking
quickly; but Crassus’ fate in 53 had shown the vulnerability of a Roman
force in the open plains of Mesopotamia, and Antony preferred a plan on
the lines of the one which (it seems) Iulius Caesar was intending to follow
in 44!4 — to take the slower northern route through Armenia into
Media Atropatene, a rougher and hillier terrain where the Parthian
cavalry would be less effective. The long-standing bad feeling between
the kings of Armenia and Media (both named Artavasdes) offered the
further possibility of exploiting one against the other. Presumably the
Armenian Artavasdes would be the Romans’ natural ally as they attacked
his Median enemy, and it seems that he was already urging Antony on;!4!
but both kings were very uncertain quantities. In 37 or early 36 P.
Canidius Crassus made a firmer understanding with the Armenian
Artavasdes, then passed on in the spring to defeat the Iberi and Albani:
this remarkably swift campaign protected what would now become the
Roman rear left. In the event the rear would be more exposed than it now
seemed, but that was because of Artavasdes’ unreliability; and, without a
much more extensive campaign, that was a risk the Romans had to take.

Antony had by now sent to Phraates demanding the return of the
eagles captured at Carrhae: a firm statement that, whatever Octavian
might be saying at Rome, Antony’s agreed task of ‘avenging Crassus’
was still incomplete.!42 Phraates of course refused — the insecure new
monarch could hardly make so humiliating a concession — and Antony’s
muster continued. He first marched with his Syrian army to Zeugma.
That might suggest that he was planning to follow Crassus’ policy and
strike direct at Mesopotamia, but that strategy would only work if the
advance was to be unopposed. In fact Phraates swiftly concentrated the
Parthian army in Mesopotamia. That ruled out Crassus’ plan, and

‘© Cf. Plut. Asaf. 37.1-2 with Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad /oc.; Dio xL1x.25.5, XLIx.24.3 with Reinhold
1988 (B 150) ad Joc. Phraates won Monaeses back suspiciously quickly; Hor. Carm. 111.5.9-12 may
even indicate that he entrusted him with an important command. Possibly Monaeses’ ‘desertion’
was simply a signal to Phraates that he would go over to Rome unless restored to authority.

1 Suet. Il. 44; cf. Bengtson 1974 (c 22) 4-9, Malitz 1984 (c 169) 56-7.

"1 Dio xxix.25.1. In 54-3 he had advised Crassus similarly (Plut. Crass. 19, 22.2).

‘42, That had been agreed at Brundisium (see above, p. 18). The strong stress in the tradition that
Ventidius had a/ready avenged Crassus (Plut. Ast. 34.3; Dio xiix.21.2; Val. Max. vt.9.9; Flor.
1.19.7; Tac. Germ. xxxvit.4) probably reflects an idea contemporary with the events themselves,
and one which Octavian would have found welcome: cf. Buchheim 1960 (c 49) 39; Timpe 1962 (c
236) 114-19; Wallmann 1989 (C 243) 236, 238-9, 263-4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

32 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

Antony struck north instead towards Armenia. There he linked with
Canidius’ army, perhaps at the plateau of Erzerum, perhaps at Artax-
ata;'43 he was also joined by contingents from the allied kings, including
Polemo.'# As Armenia had evidently been selected as the mustering-
point some months before, Antony must always have expected that the
northern route would turn out to be the only practicable one; otherwise,
indeed, Canidius’ preliminary campaign would make little sense; and it
looks as if the Zeugma exercise had been no more than an elaborate
feint.'45 In all Antony had perhaps sixteen legions and a mass of
auxiliaries,!46 and Artavasdes of Armenia supplied a large contingent of
cataphracts and lighter-armed cavalry, perhaps as many as 16,000.!47 It
was a vast army indeed, distinctly greater than that with which Caesar
had conquered Gaul.

Antony was later accused of wrecking the campaign for Cleopatra’s
sake. He had begun it too late in the season, they said, because he had
dallied too long at Alexandria; then he had conducted the invasion itself
too hurriedly, eager to return to her side.'48 But the points were hardly
fair. The muster in Armenia was perhaps in June or July; what with
Canidius’ preliminary campaign and the long preliminary marches,!*9 it
was astounding it could be so soon. Perhaps there was still a case for
waiting till 35, keeping the army concentrated in the East ready for an
early strike in the spring;!5° but there was also the Parthian dynastic crisis
to consider, as well as the chance of outflanking the Parthian army by a
swift advance now — a ploy in which Antony very nearly succeeded. Of
course Parthia would not fall in a single campaign: lulius Caesar had
planned on three years,!5! and that was reasonable. But it was also
reasonable to hope for a solid victory or so in Media, bolstering the
morale of the Roman army and Phraates’ internal enemies; then, if
necessary, Antony could withdraw and winter in Armenia (though
hardly at Cleopatra’s side). Antony’s strategy made sense.

143 Erzerum: Kromayer 1896 (c 142) 82. Artaxata: Sherwin-White 1984 (A 89) 311.

14 Polemo: Plut. Ant. 38.6; Dio xi1x.25.4. Other kings: Plut. Ant. 37.3.

145 So Kromayer 1896 (c 142) 100-1; contra, Sherwin-White 1984 (A 89) 309-10.

146 Brunt 1971 (A 9) 503-4, Sherwin-White 1984 (A 89) 311 0.37.

147 So Plut. Ant. 50.3, though at 37.3 he wrote of ‘6,000’ at the initial muster in Armenia. Strab.
XI.14.9-12 (530C) speaks of 6,000 cataphracts ‘besides the other cavalry’, which may explain
Plutarch’s confusion; or both Plutarch’s figures may be right, if the mass of the cavalry joined
Antony in eastern Armenia after the muster; or 16,000 perhaps represented the paper strength, 6,000
the force which materialized (Sherwin- White 1984 (a 89) 311 0.37).

148 Livy, Per. 130: cf. Plat. Ant. 37.5-38.1 with Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad /oc. The criticism probably
derived from Q. Dellius, an eyewitness of the campaign (Strab. x1.13.1—4 (523C)) and no friend of
Cleopatra. ‘

149 It was some 1,000 Roman miles from Zeugma to the Median border (Strab. x1.13.4—-6 (524C);
Plut. Avt. 38.1), itself a march of three to four months, and Antony’s troops first had to march from
Antioch.

150 So Plut. Ast. 38.1, perhaps from Dellius; Sherwin-White 1984 (A 89) 316~17 thinks the point
fair. 51 Dio xiii. 1.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE YEAR 36 B.C. 33

But it went wrong. Things started well, and he drove deep into Media.
He indeed reached the capital Phraata!52 before the main Parthian force
could double back from Mesopotamia. The Median king Artavasdes had
left his royal family in residence at Phraata: he at least was evidently taken
by surprise by Antony’s strategy and speed. But to get there in time
Antony had to rush on ahead of his own siege-engines. That was an
evident gamble, though not dissimilar to the risks Caesar himself had
famously taken in Gaul and in the Civil War, and the swift arrival of a
formidable army might indeed have carried the unprotected city. But
it did not, and a siege was necessary. Without the engines, it was a
curiously amateurish job.!53 And, crucially, the engines never arrived,
for Phraates’ cavalry overtook the wagon-train and destroyed it,
together with its accompanying two legions.!5+ Polemo himself was
captured, though not killed — he would be more useful alive when it
came to negotiations.!55 Artavasdes of Armenia promptly despaired of
Antony’s cause, and withdrew with his force: a severe loss, for the heavy
Armenian cataphracts would have been particularly useful in defence. A
series of engagements followed, with Antony successful in the most
substantial of them;!5¢ but the swift Parthian cavalry fled most effecti-
vely, and Antony could not follow it up.

Before long Antony was forced to abandon the siege; and, predict-
ably, his retreat turned out to be intensely difficult, with sickness and
famine as great a problem as the harrying Parthian archers. The resilience
and the valour of Antony and his army became famous, and the
comparison with Xenophon’s Ten Thousand was an obvious one.!57
Eventually, after an epic final night-time march across the foothills of the
Kuh-e-Sahand range,!58 the army reached the Talkheh, then the Araxes
and Armenia. The retreat had taken twenty-seven days, and even now
safety could not be taken for granted, given Artavasdes’ earlier treach-
ery. But Antony successfully made terms with him, and by mid-winter
the remains of the army had reached Cappadocia: there were further

152 The city’s site is uncertain: according to Dellius (cit. Strab. x1.13.1-4 (523C)) it was 2,400
stades, i.e. some 480 km, from the Armenian border. Its conventional location at Taht-i-Soleiman is
not at all likely, and it was probably much further east, near Maragheh. Cf. Schippman 1971 (F 220)
338-47; Bengtson 1974 (c 22) 29~30. Much of the standard topographical reconstruction of this
campaign is in need of correction (it is mainly still based on Rawlinson 1841 (£866) 113-17): ef. now
Sherwin-White 1984 (A 89) 311-21 and Pelling 1988 (B 138) 220-43.

'S) Plue Ant. 38.4; Arr. Parth. fr. 95r.

'4 Vell. Pat. 1.82.2; cf. Livy, Per. 130; Plut. Ant. 38.5 (10,000 men).

155 Plut Ant. 38.6; Dio xitx.25.4; cf. below, p. 38.

‘56 Plut. Ans. 39, though the account has implausible elements: cf. Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad loc.

457 It is embellished by Plutarch (cf. Pelling 1988 (B 138) 221), but perhaps originates with
Dellius: so Jacoby on FGrH 197 F 1.

‘88 Presumably the western rather than the eastern foothills, if Phraata was near Maragheh (cf. n.
152): cf. the map in Pelling 1988 (B 138) 230; Sherwin-White 1984 (a 89) 318 and n.53.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

34 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

deaths in this final section of the march. The total losses in the campaign
were indeed catastrophic, some third of the entire army.15°

So ended Antony’s great attempt to emulate Alexander. Ironically, his
best military qualities had seldom been clearer — his energy, his
enterprise, his inspirational leadership; and yet it was disastrous.
Plutarch later did well to make this campaign the centrepiece of his Life,
but not only for those reasons. This was indeed the turning-point of the
triumviral period. Till now Antony’s military prestige and power had far
outstripped Octavian, and he had consequently been the stronger
partner in their diplomatic exchanges. This campaign should have raised
his supremacy beyond challenge.

But instead the victories were being won elsewhere, and by Octavian.
His war with the popular favourite Sextus was a delicate one to fight: it
could much too easily seem Octavian’s personal vendetta. Indeed, even
while he was fighting it disturbances at Rome required urgent atten-
tion;!69 there were grumblings in the veteran colonies too;!6! Etruria was
particularly restive.!62 Octavian could not afford to lose or delay — for all
he knew, Antony was carrying all before him in Parthia — but the events
of 38 had shown how formidable an enemy Sextus could be.'6 Now
Agrippa’s preparations were magnificent, but Sextus had been preparing
too, and by 36 he had some 350 ships.!™ Just as he had in 38, Octavian
even sent to Lepidus in Africa for help. In 38 Lepidus had made no
response, content to leave Octavian with his own problems.'* This time
he decided to come in force. He eventually arrived with twelve legions
and 5,000 cavalry, with a further four legions following as reinforce-
ments (two were destroyed by Sextus’ fleet before they could land).'%
Perhaps Lepidus already had clear plans of his own, perhaps not; he at
least knew that the great battle for the West should not be fought
without him.

By July 36 Octavian was able to launch a triple-pronged attack on
Sextus in Sicily. He would attack from the north and Statilius Taurus
from the east; Lepidus would attack the western coast. The plan was
good. The campaign itself was to show how difficult Sextus would find it
to stretch his forces to meet several threats. But Octavian’s forces were
beset by storms; so many ships were lost that there were thoughts of
delaying the campaign to 35. At first only Lepidus managed to land in
strength, and he laid Sextus’ lieutenant L. Plinius Rufus under siege in

159 Plut. Aas. 50.1, 51.1, cf. Vell. Pat. 1.82.3; Flor. 1.20.10; Livy, Per. 130.

1 App BCiv. v.99.414, 112.470. 161 App. BCiv. v.99.414.

162 Dio xiix.15.1; cf. App. BCiv. v.132.547. Octavian had spent some time there in 38. Dio
XLVIIL.46. 2-3. 163 See above, p. 24.

1 Flor. 11.18.9; 300 fought at Naulochus (App. BCiv. v.118.490, 120.499). Cf. Brunt 1971 (A 9)
507-8, Hadas 1930 (c. 108) 123. 65 Dio xLviit.46.2.

16 Cf. App. BCi. v.98.406, 104.430-2; Vell. Pat. 1.80.1; Brunt 1971 (4 9) 499.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE YEAR 36 B.C. 35

Lilybaeum. In the east there were naval battles, with first Agrippa
successful off Mylae, then Sextus defeating Octavian himself off Tauro-
menium. Sextus’ victory was more emphatic than Agrippa’s, but at least
Octavian established bridgeheads both by Cape Tyndaris and near
Tauromenium: Sextus’ resistance on land was surprisingly half-hearted,
particularly at Tauromenium.’®7 Octavian soon had twenty-one legions
on the island,'68 besides Lepidus’ army; Sextus had only ten.169 He was
soon hemmed into the island’s north-east corner, a triangle bounded by
Mylae and Tauromenium, and Mylae itself fell soon afterwards. And
now even Lepidus himself was approaching, rather tardily. His part in
the whole campaign is indeed enigmatically lackadaisical: it is odd that he
did not move eastwards earlier — that was clearly where he was needed,
and perhaps expected.'7° The sequel was to show him dissatisfied with
his subordinate role. Was he perhaps content to let Octavian and Sextus
weaken one another in the east, hoping by a last minute arrival to claim
the authority he felt he deserved? The events of 44/3 had shown his
capacity to bide his time before a decisive change of front.!7! If Octavian
distrusted him, it was not without reason.!72

Sextus’ last hope was to pit everything on a battle at sea. Perhaps
unwisely, Octavian accepted battle (there was possibly even a formal
challenge and acceptance, agreeing time, place and numbers):173 but the
risk came off. The battle was fought off Naulochus (3 September 36),
with 300 ships on either side. Agrippa, not Octavian, took command. By
now brawn rather than skill was dominant in naval warfare, and
Agrippa’s heavier ships and more sophisticated grappling equipment
carried the day. Only seventeen of Sextus’ ships escaped. Sextus himself
fled: his only slender hope lay with Antony in the East.

His land forces came over to Octavian with little demur. Plinius Rufus
had moved eastwards to Messana, presumably following Lepidus. By
now he had command of a large portion of Sextus’ army, comprising
eight legions.'”4 It was clear that they would surrender: but to whom?
Agrippa and Lepidus appeared before the city: Agrippa insisted that they
wait for Octavian, but Lepidus overrode him. His forces indeed linked
with those of Plinius, and together they sacked Messina. Lepidus now
seemed in control of the combined force, some twenty-two legions. He
had not been so powerful for years. Now if ever was the time to assert

167 App. BCiv. v.110.457-9, with Gabba 1970 (B 55) ad loc.

"68 App. BCiv. v.116.481; Brunt 1971 (a 9) 498. 169 Brunt 1971 (A 9) 499-500.

17 App. BCiv. v.103.427 with Gabba 1970 (B $5) ad loc. 171 Cf. CAH 1x2 471, 482.4.

12 Dio xvix.8.3—4 even suggests that Lepidus was in secret league with Sextus, and that Octavian
suspected 2s much (cf. xz1x.1.4). That is implausible, and probably influenced both by Octavian’s
propaganda and by Dio’s tendency to guess at motivation; but some distrust is possible enough.

"3 App. BCiv. v.116.489 with Gabba 1970 (B 55) ad Joc.; cf. Gabba 1977 (C94).

'™% App. BCiv. v.122.505 with Gabba 1970 (B 55) ad loc.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

36 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

himself, to show how unfairly he had been excluded from all those
diplomatic dealings at Brundisium, Misenum and Tarentum. He laid
claim to all Sicily, though he magnanimously offered to exchange Sicily
and Africa for all his former portion, Narbonensis and Nearer and
Further Spain.!75 At first Octavian’s friends remonstrated gently, then
Octavian himself more fiercely; Lepidus was adamant. The legions were
unamused. But the delusion could not last. Octavian entered his camp,
almost unaccompanied — though there was a sizeable force of cavalry just
outside. The troops at least knew where the balance of power lay: with
only a little scuffling, they joined Octavian. Lepidus was allowed to keep
his property and his life, and he even remained pontifex maximus. But
Octavian stripped him of membership of the triumvirate and his
provincial command.'’6 There were no thoughts of consulting Antony
first. Octavian took over Africa and Sicily into his own domain. Lepidus
retired into exile and anonymity.

That effectively concluded the elimination of Sextus and Lepidus.
Antony and Octavian remained; and Antony was beginning to look a
little tattered.

IX. 35-33 B.C.

Politics now looked simpler: the reckoning would surely come, and we
might expect Antony and Octavian to spend the next few years in
preparation. But it was not quite like that. Octavian, it is true, seems to
have seen the future clearly enough. He soon intensified his battle to win
Italian public opinion, with fierce propaganda against Cleopatra and
Antony; he may even have been in contact with Antony’s enemy
Artavasdes of Armenia (unless that charge is simply a fiction of Antony’s
propaganda);!77 and he was soon battle-hardening his troops in IIlyri-
cum, suggestively close to the dividing-line with Antony’s dominion.
But Antony was slow to respond. He may have talked of joining
Octavian in an Illyrian campaign'!’8 — in self-defence, that would have
been no bad ploy, if it were practicable: but really his focus lay on the
East — indeed, on the far East, and for several years he was preoccupied
with vengeance on the perfidious Armenian king Artavasdes. Of course
an Armenian success would do something to mend the shame of the
Parthian débacle, but in Roman eyes Armenia lacked the glamour of
Parthia; a new Alexander should be more glorious than that, and
Armenia could only be the beginning; but a clearer-sighted man would
have realized that now Parthia itself was a lost cause. With Octavian
preparing in the West, there simply would not be time for the years a

15 Cf. CAH 1x2 486. 176 MRR 11 400.
17 Dio xitx.14.6. 1%8 App. BCiv. v.132.549.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

35-33 B.C. 37

second Parthian invasion would demand. Yet in 33 nearly all Antony’s
legions were still in the extreme east of his domain; only then, very
slowly, did they begin the long march west. War with Octavian was
scarcely foremost in Antony’s mind. Perhaps he was peaceable, content
by now to share the world; perhaps he was simply naive. But it is clear
which of the two was seeking the breach, and which had his thoughts
elsewhere.

The fall of Sextus involved both in temporary embarrassments.
Octavian found himself with forty-five legions, but confronted by a
mutiny. Uncomfortably enough, his troops were beginning to believe
his own propaganda. He had concluded the civil wars and brought peace
on land and sea, so he said:!79 well, in that case there was no need for
further service, and they demanded immediate demobilization. That
would hardly do. Octavian knew he would need them again soon. But at
least the longest-serving could be released, those who had fought for
Octavian since Mutina and Philippi, some 20,000 men.!8° There were
delays, but land was found for most of them, largely in Italy but partly in
Gaul.'8! The others were promised 500 denarii, and, rather surprisingly,
soon received it;'82 they were also induced to expect lucrative spoils in
Illyricum — not very plausible for any who knew the land, but probably
few did, and the ploy passed. Octavian could now return to Rome and
acclaim. He celebrated an ovatio, and the other honours included a grant
of tribunicial sacrosanctity,'®> interestingly presaging a conspicuous
feature of his later constitutional fagade. And there was more talk of
restoring the Republic when Antony returned — how could he refuse,
now Octavian had ended the civil wars? Peace and security would shortly
be restored at home as well: Calvisius Sabinus was appointed to put
down Italian brigandage, and a police force of some sort was established
in Rome itself.!84 There was even a remission of some taxes, and the
regular magistrates were ostentatiously allowed more freedom.!®5 This
was not the first time that the triumvirs had portrayed themselves as
champions of Roman tradition, even a sort of constitutional normal-
ity.18 But Octavian was beginning to steal the mask for his own.

In Antony’s case, the embarrassment was Sextus himself. In the winter
of 36/5 he arrived at Mytilene, hoping to ally himself with Antony; when

179 App. BCiv. v.128.530, 130.540—-2, 132.546—8; cf. Dio xxtx.15.2.

199 App. BCiv. v.129.534 (‘since Mutina or Philippi’); Dio xL1x.14.1 specifies those who had
served ‘since Mutina or for ten years’; cf. Reinhold 1988 (B 150) ad /oc.; Brunt 1971 (A 9) 331; Keppie
1983 (£ 65) 69-75. Some of them soon re-enlisted: Dio xix. 34.3.

181 Keppie 1983 (£ 65) 70-3; cf. Dio xL1x. 34.4.

1 Dio xiix.14.2, with Reinhold 1988 (8 150) ad /oc., App. BCiv. v.129.5 36.

18 See Endnote, p. 68.

14 App. BCiv. v.132.547; cf. Suet. Aug. 32; Dio xurx.15.1; Palmer 1978 (c 184) 320-1.

185 App. BCiv. v.130.540, 132.548; Dio xLtx.15.3; cf. Nicolet 1976 (DB 104) 95.
18 See above, pp. 19-21, 27.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

38 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

he heard of the Parthian disaster, he began to intrigue against him
instead. Either way, he was a problem. Not that he was very strong: he
was raising troops again, but even at the end he had little more than three
legions and a handful of ships.!8’ But he would be an awkward ally: with
Italy being encouraged to celebrate his downfall, it might now seem to
be Antony rather than Octavian who was refusing to let the civil wars
die. And it would be awkward to kill him too. There were enough people
in Rome who still recalled wistfully the hopes they had placed in him:!88
Octavian himself, outrageously, was later to make capital of this, and
attack Antony for his faithless treatment of him.'89 Antony appointed M.
Titius to take charge of the problem. Titius’ father had been among the
proscribed who fled to Sextus, and Titius himself had been spared by
Sextus when captured by Menodorus in 40.!% Antony probably selected
Titius precisely because of these earlier favours, to smooth any dealings
which proved necessary. But in the event no dealing proved possible, for
Sextus’ faithlessness became too apparent. By the spring of 35 the pursuit
was tying up the governors of both Asia and Bithynia, C. Furnius and
Domitius Ahenobarbus, as well as a sizeable fleet; King Amyntas too
was involved. That was too much. When Sextus was finally captured by
Amyntas in Phrygia, he was brought to Titius in Miletus and executed
there. Antony may or may not have authorized his death. If he did, he
covered his tracks: some said that Plancus, not he, had given the order;
other stories were told of two letters, one ordering the execution and one
countermanding it, which of course arrived in the wrong sequence.!%
Antony himself was more concerned with Armenia. He was clearly
determined to exact vengeance from Artavasdes; and he doubtless
considered he was being prudent as well as vindictive, for he still
dreamed of a second Parthian campaign. (He was indeed to embark on
one two years later.) For this a secure Armenia was essential; but that
could never be, as long as Artavasdes was king. Matters now took an
unexpected turn, for an envoy arrived in Alexandria from the Median
Artavasdes, Antony’s enemy of the previous year: an envoy in fact of
peculiar distinction, King Polemo himself. Antony’s designs on Arme-
nia would seem no surprise, and Median Artavasdes offered Antony an
alliance. Antony accepted, and set out from Egypt during the summer.

187 App. BCév. v.t37.571, 138.574.

188 There was a popular demonstration against Titius, Vell. Pat. 1.79.6.

189 Dio L.1.4; cf. App. BCiv. v.127.525. :

190 Dio xivtr.30.5—6. Titius was later unfairly represented as Sextus’ personal enemy: cf. App.
BCiv. v.140.584 with Gabba 1970 (B 55) ad loc., 142.589~g0. But Dio xi1x.18.3 more shrewdly
suggests that Sextus had hopes of Titius’ goodwill.

191 Dio xLix.18.4—5 with Reinhold 1988 (B 150) ad /oc.; App. BCiv. v.144.598—G6oo. But Velleius,
as ever a faithful follower of Octavian’s line, has no doubts: ‘iussu M Antonii’, 1.79.5 (cf. 87.2).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

35-33 B.C. 39

Perhaps he pretended that he was attacking the Parthians; but his
immediate goal was surely Armenia.!92

For the present it came to nothing, for a different sort of crisis
supervened. Octavia arrived in the East. Whatever people were saying
about her husband and Cleopatra, she was still his wife. (Her journey
indeed demonstrates that Italians at least could not yet think of Antony as
married to Cleopatra: otherwise she would surely have divorced him by
now.)!93 It may well be that Octavian himself had encouraged his sister in
the mission, as some suspected;!% it was certainly deeply embarrassing to
Antony — and not just because of Cleopatra, who was away from
Antony’s company at present, tactfully at home in Alexandria.! The
real problem was that Octavia was bringing with her 2,000 elite troops
from her brother, besides money and supplies to replace those lost in
Parthia, and perhaps some Italian cavalry.1% Octavian in fact owed
Antony far more than this, all the 20,000 troops that he had promised at
Tarentum in return for Antony’s 140 ships.!97 Those ships had been
most useful in the war against Sextus, and since then Octavian had
returned half of them; but that was hardly enough.!% It would be a
triumph for Octavian if Antony accepted the troops, but insulting to
Octavia if he refused — and probably politically damaging as well, for
Octavian was soon to show himself adept at building propaganda from
his sister’s maltreatment.! Sensibly, Antony accepted. But that was all
the annoyance he was prepared to take from Octavia’s presence for the
moment, and he told her to stay in Athens, perhaps even to return to
Rome.2 He himself retired to Alexandria for the winter of 35/4. (It was
evidently too late in the season to resume the Armenian expedition.)
Cleopatra was more congenial company than Octavia; Octavian could
make of that what he wished. In fact, he would make a great deal.

In early 34 Antony turned to Armenia again. First, during the winter,
came diplomacy: he sent Dellius to ask the Armenian Artavasdes for the
king’s daughter, pretending he wished to marry her to his son Alexander
Helios. She would of course make a splendid hostage. Artavasdes was
shrewd enough to refuse. In the spring Antony appeared suddenly at

192 So Dio x11x.33.3, possibly conjecturing, but intelligently.

193 Cf. above, p. 30; Plut. Ant. 36.5 with Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad Joc., 53.9—-10, 54.3.

1% Plut. Ant. 53.1.

'%5 Despite the implications of Plut. Ant. 5 3.5—9: cf. Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad loc.

196 App BCiv. v.138.575 — unless these ‘cavalry’ are the same as the 200 ‘elite troops’, cf. Gabba
1970 (B $$) ad doe.

197 See above, p. 26.

1% Their use against Sextus: cf. App. BCiv. v.98.406; Dio xi1x.1.1, 5.1. Their retum: App. BCw.
V.129.§37, 139.577; Dio xLIx.14.6.

19 His attacks on this front probably began as early as winter 35/4; cf. Plut. Ant. 54.1.

200 To stay in Athens: Plut. Ant. 53.2. To return to Rome: Dio xxx. 33.4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

40 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

Nicopolis on the Armenian border, and sent for the Armenian king to
discuss a new Parthian campaign; Artavasdes again refused. While
Dellius travelled once more to ask Artavasdes to a conference, Antony
himself marched quickly on Artaxata; Artavasdes was finally forced by
his own nobility and soldiers to come to Antony, despite his suspicions
of such curious friendliness. Antony took him captive, and quickly
occupied the whole country: he left his troops there for the winter, and
within a year at least sixteen legions would be there.2°! His enemies, first
among them Octavian, might claim that the victory was all dishonour-
able, won through perfidy; his friends would retort that Artavasdes’ own
treachery justified it quite sufficiently.22 At least, it was something to
restore Antony’s paling prestige. On coins he could celebrate a conquest
at last: ARMENIA DEVICTA.3

Artavasdes himself was conveyed to Alexandria. The thing could be
done in style: his chains were silver, or perhaps gold.2 And the victory
merited celebration. A great Dionysiac procession took place in Alexan-
dria in late 34, as was only fitting for Antony as Dionysis-Osiris, and
amply precedented in the city. Not everything went according to plan:
Artavasdes and his fellow captives refused to pay obeisance to Cleopatra.
But it was still a ceremony in which Antony could bask.

Unfortunately, it was also uncomfortably close to a Roman triumph,
which itself had many Dionysiac associations;2% and it was all too easy
for Octavian to represent it as a sacrilegious transfer of the Roman
ceremony to Egypt.2 And that was not all. At around the same time,
perhaps indeed at the same ceremony,20? came the ‘Donations of
Alexandria’. In the Alexandrian Gymnasium were set up high golden
thrones for himself and Cleopatra, and lower ones for their children: and
he declared Cleopatra monarch (along with her son Caesarion) of Egypt,
Cyprus and Koile Syria. Armenia, Media and — when conquered —
Parthia were to fall to their six-year-old son Alexander Helios; Libya and
Cyrene to his twin Cleopatra Selene; and Ptolemy Philadelphus, still only
two, was to have Phoenicia, Syria and Cilicia. Then the children
appeared themselves, Alexander with Median clothes and head-dress,
Ptolemy with the distinctive Macedonian boots, cloak and cap — but

21 Dio xi1x.40.3; Plut. Ast. 56.1: cf. below, p. 48.

22 ‘Octavian claimed that Antony’s treacherous arrest had brought great discredit on the Roman
people’, Dio t.1.4: cf. Tac. Aan. 11.3.1 with Goodyear’s commentary; Vell. Pat. 1.82.3; Fadinger
1969 (B 42) 150-1. The emphasis on Artavasdes’ treachery probably originates with Dellius: cf.
Strab. x1.13.4-6 (324C); Dio xu1x.25.5; Plut. Ast. 50.3-7 with Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad loc.

23 RRC 543, of about 32 B.c.

2 Silver: Dio xi1x.39.6. Gold: Vell. Pat. 1.82.3, with Woodmann 1983 (B 203) ad /oc. Cf. Dio
XLIX.40.3. 25 Cf. Versnel 1970 (A 97), especially 20-38, 235-54, 288-9.

26 That is the emphasis of Plut. Ant. 50.6—7; cf. Vell. Pat.11.82.4 with Woodmann 1983 (B 203) ad
Joc.; Grant 1974 (c 101) 161-2; Reinhold 1988 (B 150) on Dio xi1x.40. 3-4; Wallmann 1989 (c 243)
288-91. 27 As Dio x11x.40—-1 implies.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

35-33 B.C. 41

Alexander had a regal tiara too, and Ptolemy a diadem.”° It was all show.
The gestures made no difference to the administration of the East.2 But
it was a show with style, and it doubtless went down very well in
Alexandria.

It was still an extraordinary thing to do, and Octavian clearly relished
it. Just as in 36 when he flaunted his liaison with Cleopatra, Antony
surely underestimated the dangers of such behaviour before the Roman
public: and once again we see a substantial political error centring on
Cleopatra — perhaps indeed inspired by her persuasion. At that time,
Antony was still concerned about Italian opinion. He responded to
Octavian’s constitutional talk by writing grandly himself to the Senate
about restoring the Republic.2!° But the antics in Alexandria belied the
republican pretence. The gestures may have meant little, but if they
meant anything they meant a dynastic succession: Antony was indeed a
second Hercules, but in fathering a new race of monarchs, and fathering
them from a foreign woman. He would even issue coins with his head on
one side and Cleopatra’s on the other. It was unthinkable, a foreign
woman on a Roman coin!2!! True, his Roman children were not
forgotten either: at around this time he was issuing coins with his head
and that of his eldest son Antyllus, his principal heir in Roman law.?!2
But there too the suggestions were all too close to a dynasty; and that was
not the Roman way.

Still, one should not overstate the damage. Octavian certainly
fastened on this, and Antony’s friends in Rome were certainly discom-
fited:?!3 that is enough to demonstrate its unwisdom. But still in early 32,
when he sought ratification in Rome for his acta, the Antonian consuls
Sosius and Ahenobarbus believed they could hush up the affair of the
Donations, some fifteen months earlier:2!4 hardly credible, if they had
been as public and spectacular as our sources Plutarch and Dio suggest.

Other propaganda mattered more. Of course, Antony and Octavian
had been exchanging public abuse for years, with particular ferocity
during the early stages in 44-43 and the Perusine War of 40.25 But

208 Plut. Ant. 54.8, with Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad /oc.

2» Pelling 1988 (B 138) 249-50, on Plut. Ant. 5 4.4—-9 (contra, Wallmann 1989 (c 243) 291-6). Even
the association of Caesarion in the monarchy was not new: that dates back to 37-36 (Samuel 1971 (c
206)).

210 Dio xxrx.41.6, cf. Suet. Aug. 28.1. This offer may have been included in the dispatch to the
Senate which arrived in early 32 (see below, p. 49); so ¢.g. Fadinger 1969 (B 42) 119-28, 195-206;
Gray 1975 (C 102) 17-18; but Dio’s language does not fix it so precisely.

211 Especially RRC 543, the ARMENIA DEVICTA coin (see above, p. 40), but also some more
minor local issues: cf. Buttrey 1953 (B 314) 54-86 (esp. 84), 95; Wallmann 1989 (c 243) 251-2, 255.

212, RRC gq: ef. Wallmann 1989 (c 243) 251-2. 213 Dio xLix.41.4. 214 Dio sbid.

15 Scott 1933 (c 212) collects the material; for subtler treatment, with illuminating modern
parallels, cf. Kennedy 1984 (c 134), Watson 1987 (B 192) and especially Wallmann 1989 (c 243). On
artistic questions Zanker 1987 (F 632) is outstanding.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

42 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

during the last few years Octavian had rather been directing his fire at
Sextus — the champion of the slaves and pirates, or so Octavian could
pretend.246 With Sextus’ fall, the propaganda battle with Antony
recommenced, and they were soon exchanging public letters and
manifestos. Part of it was simply the competition to outbid one another
in constitutionalist protestation; but much was more personal. That of
course followed the traditions of Roman invective, but it also suited the
times. To be successful, propaganda needs to find a willing public, with
prejudices it can subtly mirror and exploit. Now it was easy to see civil
war and fraternal bloodshed as the index of the collapse of the old
virtues. The public was ripe for believing what it was told about
Antony’s morality, and for thinking that it mattered. By winter 35/4
Octavian was probably making capital out of his sister’s treatment:
surely she was entitled to a divorce — but she was of course too noble to
seek one.?!7 Then there was all the eastern degeneracy, the debauchery,
the infatuation (as of course it must be) with Cleopatra. All could be
painted in the most lurid colours. Horace’s ninth Epode, written a few
years later in 31, gives some of the flavour:

Future generations will not believe it — a Roman soldier,

bought and sold, carrying stakes and bearing arms for a woman,

even bringing himself to serve under withered eunuchs! And amid

the army’s standards the sun glimpses a shameful mosquito net.
(Hor. Epodes 1x. 11-16)

Tales could be told of Antony anointing Cleopatra’s feet in public, or
reading love-letters as he delivered judgments — even springing from his
tribunal to hang on to Cleopatra’s litter as she passed!2!8 Antony’s
entourage too came in for picturesque attack: stories were told of a
banquet where Plancus danced, naked and painted, as a sea-god.2!9 And
Cleopatra herself: she evidently wished to rule in Rome — why, her
favourite form of oath was ‘so may I give my judgments on the Capitol’!
But Rome might then be nothing: were they not scheming to move the
capital to Alexandria?220

216 Cf. above, p. 20; Wallmann 1989 (c 243) 163-77, 185-220. Even after Sextus fell, this public
front was maintained: cf. RG 25.1, ‘mare pacavi a praedonibus’, and 27.3, ‘bello servili’; and in late
36 Octavian made a great show of restoring his ‘slaves’ to their owners for punishment (RG 23.1;
App. BCiv. v.130.544-5 with Gabba 1970 (B 55) ad Joc.; Dio XLIx.12.4-$).

217 Plut. Aat. $4.1, $7.4, with Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad Joc. In 35 sacrosanctity was extended to
include Livia and Octavia (Dio xi1x.38.1 with Reinhold 1988 (B 150) ad /oc.; cf. Endnote 2): that was
doubtless a related ploy. Octavian’s women should have a solemnity to offset the awesome but
shameless Cleopatra.

218 Plut. Ant. 58.9—11, the stories of Octavian’s friend Calvisius Sabinus: Plutarch did not believe
them, 39.1. 219 Vell. Pac. 11.83.2.

29 Dio 1.4.1-2, 5, 26.5; Vell. Pat. 1.82.4; Livy, Per. 132; cf. Prop. 111.11.31-50, esp. 46; Hor.
Carns. 1.37.5-12; Ov. Met. xv.826—8; Scott 1933 (c.212) 43-4; Fadinger 1969 (B 42) 115~18, 163.
Augustus himself included such material in his Axtobiography, published in the twenties: cf. fr. 16M.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

35—33 B.C. 43

Antony of course responded. Octavian’s battle-record was frivolous
and cowardly; now his treatment of Lepidus was outrageous. What had
happened to Antony’s share of Sicily? Or to the troops he was owed?
Now Octavian had found land for all his own troops, what would be left
for Antony’s? And Octavian’s behaviour was pretty outlandish too: he
had had his affairs with consular wives, indeed his friends were carefully
inspecting unclothed matrons and virgins to pick for his pleasure; and
had people not heard of that strange banquet of the twelve gods, when
Octavian had taken the role of Apollo?22! It was not just Antony who
dealt in foreign marriages, either; Octavian had offered his daughter
Iulia to Cotiso, king of the Getae — indeed, promised to take Cotiso’s
own daughter in return.222 (One wonders what Livia might have said to
that.) Octavian was much too fond of gaming, too.? But many of
Antony’s lines, far too many, had to be defensive. He wrote a work de sua
ebrietate, On his own drunkenness, for instance?24 ~ presumably less enter-
taining than it sounds, not a tippler’s memoir but an earnest insistence
that he was less drunken than Octavian alleged. But the attacks on
Cleopatra were clearly the most damaging. In a public letter of 33 he
remonstrated with Octavian:

What has changed your view towards me? Because I’m screwing the queen? Is
she my wife? [Of course not!]?25 And I’ve been doing it for nine years anyway.
And what about you? Is Livia the only woman you screw? I bet, when you read
this, you'll just have been inside some Tertulla or Terentilla or Rufilla or Salvia
Titisenia — or all of them. Does it matter where and in whom you have your
erections? (Suet. Axg. 69)

The tone as well as the content has its point. This is the broad, coarse
language of the soldier, the thoroughly masculine Roman. A man like
this would not waste his time with effeminate mosquito nets.

There was another medium, too, that of visual art: and here Antony
found it even more difficult to hold his own. Particularly striking was the
treatment of the gods. Antony might have his Dionysus, and a few years
earlier he had been emphasizing Hercules. Both could seem all too
appropriate to an Italian audience. That Dionysiac blend of excess,
drunkenness and eastern menace was hardly reassuring. And Hercules, it
was recalled, had fallen unmanned before Omphale: a suggestive model
for Antony, indeed, and one that duly recurs in contemporary art.
Octavian countered with more comfortable gods, especially Apollo with

721 Battle-record: Suet. Axg. 10.4, 16.2; cf. Charlesworth 1933 (c 60) 174-5. Lepidus, Sicily and
settlements: Plut. Aas. 55; cf. Dio v.1.3—4, 20.2—3. Apolline banquet: Suet. Aug. 69.1, 63.2, 70; cf.
Charlesworth 1933 (c 60); Wallmann 1989 (c 243) esp. 268-74. 722 Suet. Axg. 69.2.

2 Suet. Ag. 71. 24 Pliny, HN xtv.148; cf. Scott 1929 (c 211); Geiger 1980 (c 96).

25 This punctuation and interpretation is clearly right: cf. Kraft 1967 (c 140) and Carter 1982
(B 24) ad Loc.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

44 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

his civilized order, discipline, calm and restraint. Here too Octavian
found a willing audience: Apolline themes, portrayed with delicate
restraint, swiftly become favourites in private dwellings, sometimes in
rooms which would not be open to any public gaze: that must reflect
genuine Italian taste, a spontaneous welcoming of the new moral
climate. But it was not just Apollo. On beautifully minted coins, Venus,
Jupiter, Hermes and Victoria were all shown in association with
Octavian. If the gods were taking sides, no one could doubt which
divine entourage was the weightier.226 And here Antony could do little
to reply: religion worked differently in the East, and he could hardly be
more than Dionysus incarnate. A plurality of gods would simply blur the
picture, and no wonder that even Hercules was dropping from view.
So propaganda flourished. At whom was it all aimed? Really, at
everyone, or at least everyone in Italy. We might expect the veteran
colonies to be most important: after all, the veterans had refused to fight
one another in 40,727 and the recent mutiny had shown that Octavian’s
control of them was insecure. Doubtless they did matter, and Antony’s
coarse language would strike a particular chord with them; but perhaps
they mattered less than we naturally assume. For one surprising
omission from the catalogue of propaganda themes is the memory of
Iulius Caesar himself. Was Antony or Octavian his true heir? In 44-43
that theme had been vital.228 Now there was certainly a little of this:
Antony for instance made something of Caesarion — Caesar’s ¢rue son, as
he claimed in a letter to the Senate (not merely adopted, like Octavian);?29
while Octavian toyed publicly with the idea of invading Britain again,
and — very slowly — was building a temple to Divus Iulius in the Forum
Romanum.2> Still, this is surprisingly little. To judge from the propa-
ganda now, Caesar was out of date; just as there had been no particular
concern to portray the war with Sextus as a rehash of the old civil war,
with a young Caesar and a young Pompey reliving their fathers’
destinies. Yet surely, in the colonies themselves, Caesar’s name was no
irrelevance, and his veterans would not have been impervious to the
battle-cry. Soldiers would surely be less moved by all this talk of oriental
excess: Caesar too had had his women; soldiers, and their captains, were
simply like that. Those themes had more appeal for the propertied classes
of the Italian towns, where traditional morality was strong. These,

226 Hercules and Omphale: the Arretine cup in the Metropolitan Museum, New York (CVA
Metr. Mus. tv BF Pl. 24): Zanker 1987 (F 632) 65-7. Cf. Prop. 11.11.16—20; Plut. Ant. 90(3).4.Coins:
Zanker 1987 (F 632) 61-5; cf. Wallmann 1989 (c 243) 273-4 and (on Apollo) Mannsperger 1973
(c 171). 27 See above, p. 17. Cf. Wallmann 1989 (c 243) 151-2, 159-61, 219-20, 339743.

28 Cf. CAH 1x? 471-8. 229 Suet. In/. 52.2; cf. Dio xLix.41.2, L.1.5.

280 Britain: Dio xL1x.38.2 with Reinhold 1988 (B 150) ad /oc.; Virg. G. 1.30, 111.25; Hor. Epod.
vit.7. The temple was not finished till 29 B.c., though celebrated on coins as early as 36 (RRC 5 40; cf.
Weinstock 1971 (F 235) 399~400; Zanker 1987 (F 632) 44).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

35-33 B.C. 45

probably, were the people whom Augustus was to eye a few years later
with his moral legislation,! and a constituency to which he was always
alert. Even the Senate, the rich, the cultured would not be unmoved by
the themes; we might expect them to be more sophisticated — after all,
they turned out too sophisticated to stomach the moral reforms — and it
is true that many of the most republican and traditional stayed loyal to
Antony;”2 but even the most urbane find propaganda hard to escape, if it
is repeated often and insistently enough, and if it appeals sufficiently
sharply to their pre-existent assumptions and prejudices. More senators
eventually took Octavian’s part than Antony’s.233
Octavian anyway knew better than to bludgeon the cultured too
crudely. ‘Propaganda’ is too crass a word to apply to the literary
production of his followers. Horace, for instance, was hardly disloyal.
When he was writing an Epode, the tone would be appropriately
Archilochean and abusive. But he was also writing his Satires, where
Lucilius had set the generic pattern of personal attack and derision; yet,
very self-consciously, Horace turned away from the tradition, dwelling
instead on the delicate portrayal of his life and his values, especially the
value of friendship. Remarkably, Antony and Cleopatra escape attack;
Horace’s personalia are different, warmer and more intimate. If Octavian
is in the background, the suggestions are gentle ones: these are his
friends, and this is how they live. A few years earlier Virgil too had
complimented Octavian in the first Ec/ogue — ‘deus nobis haec otia fecit’
(1.6), and there can be little doubt that the god is Octavian. Coming so
early in the first poem, that is almost an informal dedication of the whole
collection. But the tone is anything but bluntly propagandist. The final
emphasis of the first Ec/ogue rests more on the emptiness faced by the
dispossessed Meliboeus; and the whole book explores the different
registers of tragedy one found in the Italian countryside, an idyllic land
now wracked by a devastation for which, if one thought about it,
Octavian himself took much of the blame. In the late thirties Virgil was
at work on the Georgics, and there too he wrote warmly of Octavian. But
once again the tone is often sombre, dwelling on the vast work that was
needed to restore the beauty that had been marred and lost.2% As in the
first Eclogue, Octavian can certainly offer hope: ‘hunc saltem everso
iuvenem succurrere saeclo|ne prohibete’ (G. 1. 5oo—1). But still not all of
these are the emphases Octavian would have favoured himself. Guided
doubtless by Maecenas, he was already seeing the value of a patronage
which was notably loose and free, and the poets responded with writing
231 See below, ch. 18 pp. 883-93. 232 See below, pp. 49-50. 23 See below, p. 53.
24 That is a suggestion even of the proem to the third Georgic, where Virgil promises Octavian a
poetic temple in the manner of Pindar. The ‘temple’ will be in Mantua. After G. 11.198—9, and indeed

Edi. 1x.27-9 (see above, p. 14), Mantua’s suggestions are tragic; its idyllic description at G. 11.12-15
must now seem bland, with the tragedy artificially muted.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

46 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

which meshed with his propagandist themes without always crudely
echoing them. He already knew better than to confuse independence
with subversion: knowledge which he was to retain for many years to
come.

And, all this while, what was Octavian doing himself? He was in
Illyricum, winning some glory for himself with cheap foreign blood.
There had been campaigns there a few years earlier: in 39 Pollio had been
involved with the Parthini in the south, and possibly with the Delmatae
as well,235 at the same time an army of Octavian had apparently been
active somewhere in the country.256 But little had been achieved, and
there was still plenty for Octavian to do. And, of course, Illyricum
bordered Antony’s dominion. It was not very likely that it would be
strategically valuable if it came to war; at least, not unless Illyricum could
be fully conquered, and that would hardly be practicable in the time. A
civil war would probably be fought in Greece, and Greece would still be
reached most readily by the sea-crossing from Italy. But, when war came,
at least Octavian’s troops would not have far to go. He could reasonably
hope to make inroads into Antony’s territory before Antony himself
could return.

The campaigns themselves are described elsewhere in this volume.?37
By summer 33 Octavian was back in Rome, sporting the eagles which
Gabinius had lost in 48 and the defeated Delmatae had now returned.238
The achievements were modest but real, and Illyricum had certainly
served its purpose: Octavian had secured his excuse for keeping his
soldiers in arms, the men had been battle-hardened, and Octavian
himself looked far more soldierly at the end than at the beginning. Why,
he had even contrived to be wounded, though not always very
satisfactorily: at Setovia, for instance, he was struck by a stone on the
knee. And he might seem something of a disciplinarian as well. On one
occasion he had gone so far as to order a decimation of his own troops.?39
During his brief winter stays at Rome Octavian could inveigh against
Antony, and contrast his own energy with Antony’s sloth.24 Now

235 This is disputed, and is connected with the difficult question of Pollio’s own political position
during those years. For different views cf. Syme 1937 (D 67); Bosworth 1972 (c 34); and Woodman
1983 (B 203) on Vell. Pat. 1.78.2.

26 App. BCw. v.80.338; Vell. Pat. 11.78.2; it is possible, but not perhaps very likely, that
Octavian’s army and Pollio’s were one and the same (cf. Bosworth 1972 (c 34) 466-7; Woodman
1983 (B 203) on Vell. Pat. 11.78.2). App. BCiv. v.75.320 records an expedition sent by Antony against
the Parthini in late 39; that campaign, pace Bosworth 1972 (c 34) 466, is much more likely to be
identical with Pollio’s. 237 See below, pp. 172-3, 549-50.

238 App. Il/. 28.82; RG 29.1. On the date of Octavian’s return cf. Schmitthenner 1958 (C 304)
215-16.

239 Decimation was in fact rather in fashion: instances had been ordered by Caesar in 49 (Dio
XL1.3§.§, if that can be trusted), Domitius Calvinus in 39 (Dio xivitt.4z.2), and Antony in 36 (Plut.
Ant. 39.9, Dio xttx.27.1). But in each of those cases the punishment was rather more clearly
deserved than on this occasion. 240 Cf. Plut. At. $5.1, App. l/l. 16.46.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

35-33 B.C. 47

people might actually believe him. And in Rome itself celebration could
be marked in other ways. It might be by triumphs. Admittedly, in 34 the
Antonian Sosius celebrated his triumph over Judaea, possibly the most
brilliant of them all — and celebrated it on, of all days, 3 September, the
anniversary of Naulochus, when men’s thoughts should have been with
Octavian. For this to be allowed, Antony must still have had his
influential friends. But at least Octavian’s men could outdo Antony in
numbers of triumphs: in 36 Domitius Calvinus over Spain, in 34 Statilius
Taurus over Africa and Norbanus Flaccus over Spain, in 33 Marcius
Philippus and Claudius Pulcher over Spain and L. Cornificius over
Africa.241 And in the Roman way triumph led to buildings ex manubiis,
from the spoils of conquest. In the late thirties Domitius Calvinus was
rebuilding the Regia, while in the Campus Martius Statilius Taurus was
building a stone amphitheatre and Marcius Philippus restoring a temple
of Hercules Musarum; on the Aventine Cornificius was rebuilding the
temple of Diana. And it was not just the triumphators: Paullus Aemilius,
apparently Octavian’s partisan, completed and dedicated his Basilica in
34. Antony’s followers responded. Domitius Ahenobarbus too built a
temple of Neptune; Sosius planned a splendid temple to Apollo in the
Circus, vainly hoping to impugn Octavian’s exclusive claim on the god;
but on their own they could hardly compete with Octavian’s men. And
though Octavian himself made a point of delaying his acceptance of an
Illyrian triumph (he eventually celebrated it in 29), he certainly joined in
the craze for construction: in 33 he rebuilt the Porticus Octavia, and put
Gabinius’ eagles on display there; in 32 he restored Pompey’s theatre;
work was also proceeding on the temples of Divus Iulius, Palatine
Apollo and Jupiter Feretrius; and particular energy was spent on the
Mausoleum, the material guarantee of Octavian’s own eternal glory.242
All of this would visibly attest the restoration of Rome’s glory; nearly all
pointed to Octavian. He was already turning Rome from brick to marble.

Sewerage mattered too; that fell to trusty Agrippa. He organized an
extensive scheme of cleaning and repair; indeed, during these years he
carried out a massive overhaul of the whole water supply.243 In 34, it
seems, he restored one aqueduct, the Aqua Marcia, then in 33 the Aqua
Iulia; he also repaired others, the Aqua Appia and the Anio Vetus; and
reservoirs and ornamental fountains were built all over the city. As aedile
in 33 — an odd but significant appointment for so distinguished a man —
Agrippa fostered the people in other ways, with spectacular games, free
distributions of salt and olive oil, free admission to the baths, and a
scattering of vouchers in the theatre for clothing, money and other

2 [Ital XII 1 342-3, $69-Go.

242 On all this cf. below, pp. 785-9, and Shipley 1931 (F $71), Zanker 1987 (F 632), 73-80.
243 For the details, Roddaz 1984 (c 200) 148-52.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

48 1. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

things.24 A more dignified step was Agrippa’s revival of the /usus
Troiae,2*5 later to be celebrated in the Aeneid (v. 545-603). Octavian had
been alert for some time to the possibilities of a tasteful antiquarianism.
As early as 43 he had been hinting at a link with Romulus, and in 38
there had been some ritual at the casa Romuli on the Palatine:247 nor,
probably, was it coincidence that he chose to live so close to the casa
Romuli himself.248 His traditionalism was gathering style. To emphasize
the point, astrologers and magicians were expelled from the city.24° They
were altogether too unroman.

And Antony? His thoughts were still far away. In 33 he planned a
second Parthian campaign, this time with his new ally Artavasdes of
Media: they were now more closely linked, with Alexander Helios
betrothed to the king’s daughter Iotape. Iotape had indeed been safely
transported to Alexandria —an additional stimulus to loyalty, perhaps. In
the spring of 33 Antony and Artavasdes met on the Araxes. All, or
almost all, of Antony’s eastern army was already in Armenia, a full
sixteen legions.25° In 36, the need to concentrate his troops had delayed
the invasion till uncomfortably late in the year; now, he was in a much
better position for an early attack. But such thoughts were already out of
date, and finally even Antony came to realize it. The defence of the
eastern frontier was left to the Median king and to Polemo, to whom he
now gave Lesser Armenia.5! Antony’s own troops began the 2,500-km
march back to the Ionian coast. At last, he had ‘turned to the civil war’.252

X. PREPARATION: 32 B.C.

Almost certainly, the second term of the triumvirate expired on 31
December 33.753 This time there would evidently be no question of
renewing it, even as the duovirate it had now become. This would not
leave the legal position of Antony and Octavian unsupportable,?54 but it
was certainly embarrassing, and more embarrassing for Octavian than
for Antony. Octavian had lately been making so much of his respect for
Roman tradition and the Roman republican constitution; and Octavian
would be in Italy, where legal questions could awaken more interest. In
the East Antony simply ruled —as god, monarch, proconsul, or triumvir,
it hardly mattered. In Italy , it might. And Octavian’s position was
delicate in other ways, for if the triumvirate had expired the consuls
might matter more; and the consuls of 32 were to be C. Sosius and Cn.

24 Dio xLix.42—3 with Reinhold 1988 (B 150) ad doc.; cf. Roddaz 1984 (c 200) 145-57.

245 Dio XLix.43.3. 24 Suet. Axg. 95. 247 Dio xLvult.43.4.
248 Suet. Aug. 72, with Carter 1982 (B 24) ad foc. He acquired the house in 42/r.
249 Dio XLIx.43.5. 250 Plut. Ant. 56.1; cf. Dio xirx.40.2, see above, p. 40; Brunt 1971 (A 9)

jog. 251 Dio xitx.4g.2. %2 Plut. Aat. 53.12. 23 See Endnote, p. 67. 2 See above, pp. 26-7.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PREPARATION: 32 B.C. 49

Domitius Ahenobarbus — not merely Antonians but peculiarly impres-
sive ones, particularly Domitius with his record of republican political
commitment and all the weight of an ancient family. Nor was he the only
old republican to prefer Antony to Octavian. So did Cato’s grandson, L.
Calpurnius Bibulus, and there were others too.2> Not that the issue
would be decided simply by the credentials of one’s Roman followers. It
would depend on martial strength: and Antony’s army and Antony
himself were infinitely more formidable a force than anything Octavian
had yet confronted. In retrospect, we too readily think of Octavian as
already marked out for victory. History may have been on his side, but
many of the crucial factors were not. Since 37 Octavian had certainly
done much to redress the odds, which till then had heavily favoured
Antony: Octavian’s politics had been much the shrewder, his campaigns
the more triumphant; his supporters increasingly included persons of
family and achievement.256 But to a measured observer those odds were
still on Antony.

The pleasantries soon started. The consuls were armed with a dispatch

from Antony, recounting his acta and asking for ratification ~ something
he did not legally need,” but knew it was tactful to seek; it may also have
included some further offer to lay down the triumvirate.258 True, in
January little was heard of all this; the experienced Domitius held the
fasces, and thought some of the acta better suppressed. But on 1
February?5 Sosius took over the fasces and launched a public attack on
Octavian. Most interestingly, his motion of censure was vetoed by a
tribune: the institutions of the Republic might seem alive once more. If
that suggests that the motion would otherwise have passed, it is eloquent
testimony for the degree of senatorial sympathy Antony still enjoyed.
But the inference is precarious. The motion was an extreme step; if
Sosius had doubted whether it would pass, a prearranged veto would
have been a shrewd device.

For the moment, Octavian himself was sensibly absent from the city.
Buta few weeks later he responded with a show of force in the Senate: he
was surrounded by an armed guard, and, whatever his legal status, he
took his seat on a chair of state between the consuls. Rome was
accustomed to violent displays, but this was not the sort of tradition that
Octavian wished to be seen reviving; still, it was immediately effective,
for the consuls fled to Antony. Many senators, possibly several

255 Syme 1939 (A 93) 222, 239, 266-70, 282; Syme 1986 (A 95) 206-7, 264.

256 Syme 1939 (A 93) 234-42.

257 All the triumviral acts had already been ratified in advance: cf. above, p. 20 with n.80.

258 Cf. p. 41 and n. 210.

29 Cf. Gray 1975 (c 102) 17; Reinhold 1988 (B 150) on Dio v.2.3. For the alternative view, that
Sosius launched an attack on 1 January, cf. Fadinger 1969 (8 42) 195 n.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

jo I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

hundred,? accompanied them. Antony organized them into a ‘counter-
senate’, reflecting his claim that the constitution was on his side. In the
presence of the consuls, driven out by arrant force, the claim was not
ridiculous. But their flight left Italy an open field for the completion of
Octavian’s propaganda, and his final transformation of a selfish war into
a national crusade. It was a travesty, of course. The consuls might after
all have been more useful in Rome itself, providing a visible reminder
that there was more to Antony’s side than eastern effeminacy.

They found Antony in Ephesus,”! organizing the transport of his
troops to Greece. It was a massive task. His army was eventually more
than 100,000 strong, at least as large as for the Parthian campaign.75? He
had clearly been recruiting in the East, presumably both native orientals
and resident Italians.263 His fleet numbered 800, nearly 300 of them
transports;?6* but that was surely not enough to carry the whole army,
and they must have crossed the Aegean in several waves. Shortly Antony
and his staff moved to Samos. As usual on campaign, there was time to
kill: Cleopatra and Antony characteristically did so in style. The
festivities became famous.%5 They also, of course, afforded a further diet
for Octavian to feed his public.

Antony also faced a more serious choice. It still seemed likely that the
campaign would start before the end of 32. Should Cleopatra stay for it,
or should she return to Egypt? Domitius Ahenobarbus and others urged
Antony to send her away, Canidius Crassus said she should remain — so
the story went, and probably it was more than a story, for Domitius had
just been in Rome and knew what Octavian was making of Cleopatra
there. Other experienced politicians, including Plancus, clearly took the
same view. Equally Canidius, soon to command the land-army, would
naturally stress the importance of Cleopatra’s military aid — at least 200
ships (presumably including crews), and vast financial support as well.2
It was not at all an easy choice, for there was also the question of the
troops’ and allies’ morale. Just as Octavian encouraged Italians to see the
war as a crusade against the East, so many easterners surely saw it as a

2 Syme 1939 (A 93) 278 and others state that there were more than 300: this is because RG 25.3
claims ‘more than 700 senators’ serving under Octavian’s colours in the Actium war, and the
Senate’s total strength was more than 1,000. The inference is most precarious.

261 Plut. Ant. 56.1~3; ef. ZPE 14 (1974) 257-8, an inscription honouring Domitius as patron of
Ephesus and Samos.

262 Plut. Ant. 61 with Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad /or.; Brunt 1971 (A 9) 503-7. Most of those troops
would have joined Antony by the spring of 32.

263 Brunt 1971 (A 9) 507, Levick 1967 (E 851) 58-60. Already in 38 some cohorts included ‘many
recruits from Syria’, Joseph. AJ xiv.449, BJ 1.324. 24 Plut. Ast. 56.2, cf. 61.5.

265 Plut. Ant. 56.6—57.1: doubtless elaborated, but some of the detail (e.g. the gift of Priene to the
‘Artists of Dionysus’) seems too circumstantial for sheer fiction. It was perhaps now that Antony
also granted privileges to ‘the worldwide association of victors at the festival games’ (above, p. 11
and n. 31). 266 Plut. Ant. 56.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PREPARATION: 32 B.C. 51

chance to avenge themselves on Rome.?67 Such men would fight for their
queen, not for a Roman general. Cleopatra had to stay.

By early summer the slow western journey had reached Athens.268 The
time was coming for decisiveness, and Antony sént a note of divorce to
Octavia. Perhaps he had little choice. When war came, it was inconceiv-
able that Octavia could remain his wife, demurely tending the house and
family of a public enemy (for such he would very likely be declared).
Octavian had, it seems, been publicly urging his sister to divorce her
lecherous and unfaithful husband for some time;26? Octavia would
hardly continue to refuse. At Athens the prospect was already the subject
for public jokes.2” One could already foresee the grave and sorrowful
speech where Octavia announced her decision — a moving and elegant
culmination for her brother’s propaganda. Far better for Antony to
initiate the matter himself; far better to get it over with now.

Octavia had to be dismissed, Cleopatra had to stay. Both steps made
sense; but both were hard decisions, which fuelled Octavian’s attacks
and alienated valuable Italian support. In earlier days, with Pompey and
with Brutus and Cassius, the better cause had managed to draw on
eastern support without losing its solid Roman respectability. This was
different. Even to Antony’s most valued captains, Octavian’s derision
might seem to have a core of truth. The womenfolk symbolized
something deeper. Antony did look more like a champion of the East, an
uncomfortable figurehead. Opinions might differ on what to do about it.
The most influential figure was Domitius, by now it seems leader of a
sort of ‘Roman party’.2”1 He confined himself to public rudeness to
Cleopatra:272 that was harmless enough. Others were more decisive.
Plancus was Antony’s most senior consular;2”3 Titius, Plancus’ nephew
and the slayer of Sextus, was consul designate.” It was about now?75
that both fled to Octavian, who was doubtless delighted: with every
Roman who transferred allegiance, especially men as distinguished as

267 Cf. Tarn 1932 (C 233) 135-43, Suggesting that Sib, Or. 111.3 50-61 dates to this period. That
oracle looks forward with joy to Rome’s humiliation and Asia’s triumph, and might seem to be
casting back much of Octavian’s propaganda in his face. But sadly, the dating is insecure, cf.
Nikiprowetzky 1970 (B 131), esp. 144~50, 201-2.

268 Eus. Chron. 11.140 dates Antony’s divorce of Octavia to May — June 32; Plut. Aas. 57 says that
the divorce note was sent from Athens, probably rightly. 269 See above, p. 42.

7 Someone scrawled under a statue of Antony, ‘’Oxraovia xatl 'A@nva "Avrwvidy: res tuas tibi
habe’ (the normal formula of divorce), Sen. Suas. 1.6. Cf. above, p. 23, for talk ofa divine marriage of
Antony and Athena.

7m Suet. Ner. 3.2. a2 Vell. Pat. 11.84.2. 23 Syme 1939 (A 93) 267.

74 TLS 891 (Miletus). He was eventually cos. suff. in 31, but he owed that to Octavian; he may
originally have been designated for a different year.

75 Samos honoured Titius as a benefactor, so he was probably still with Antony then: cf. IGRR
1v 1716, MDAI (A) 75 (1960) 149d. Dio L.3.2 seems to put their defection after the divorce, though
that may be only his conjecture; Plut. Ant. 58.4 connects it with the issue whether Cleopatra should
remain.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

52 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

this, the lines of East and West became more plain. Still, Plancus and
Titius as yet had no followers, or none of which we hear. Antony’s men
might be troubled, but most stayed firm.

Plancus derided Antony in the Senate; not everyone was impressed,?76
and a more sensational ploy was needed. The two renegades suggested
that Antony’s will, which rested with the Vestal Virgins, might repay
study. It was illegal, as it happened, to open the will of a living man; no
matter — Octavian opened it, alone and unsupervised.?” Its provisions
were extraordinary: when Antony died he was to be buried in Alexan-
dria; Caesarion was recognized as Caesar’s son (though it is hard to say
why this quite fitted in Antony’s will); vast gifts were to be made to the
children borne by Cleopatrato Antony. It was all exactly what Octavian
might have wished for. Why, he might almost have written it himself.
Perhaps indeed he did, at least in part:278 the Vestals would not know the
will’s contents, and Octavian could claim what he wished. And he was
skilful enough to allege provisions which Antony, eager to retain his
eastern support, would find as uncomfortable to deny as to admit.

Even Antony’s preparations, worryingly massive as they were, could
be turned to account. Perhaps by early August, his force was on the west
coast of Greece.279 Was he intending to invade Italy, the natural climax of
such treachery to Rome? That was desperately unlikely, in fact.
Octavian firmly held Tarentum and Brundisium, the two great harbours
of southern Italy, and it would be no easy matter for Antony to transport
large quantities of troops in several waves and land them on hostile
beaches.78! Roman civil wars were always fought in Greece, for precisely
this reason: it was natural for one side to flee to exploit the resources of
the East, but then virtually impossible to force a passage back to a
defended Italy.

Still, the Italian public were not strategists. They feared what they
were told to fear. Evidently they needed a champion, and it could only be
Octavian; but his status was still uncertain. He was no longer calling
himself triumvir (Antony, incidentally, had no such compunctions);782
though it would be hard to doubt that Octavian retained his vast
provincial imperium, he wanted something more, something which
would clearly justify him as the defender of Rome and its traditions, and

76 Cf. the cutting remark of one Coponius, Vell. Pat.11.83.3.

777 Just as, alone and unsupervised in a temple, he found equally convenient material a few years
later: the truth (so he claimed) about the consular status of old Cornelius Cossus. Cf. Livy 1v.20.5—11
with Ogilvie 1965 (B 135) ad /oc. and below, ch. 2 p. 80.

™ Cf. e.g. Syme 1939 (A 93) 282 n.1; Crook 1957 (c 68) 36-8; contra, Johnson 1978 (c 128);
Wallmann 1989 (c 243) 310-13. 2 Kromayer 1898 (c 143) 57-

20 Cf. Livy, Per. 132; Dio x.9.2; Vell. Pat. 11.82.4; Plut. Ant. 58.1-3 with Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad
lo.

281 Cf, Plut. Ant. 62.3; Hermocrates at Thuc. vi. 34.5. The strategic position is set out masterfully
by Kromayer 1898 (c 143) 57-67. 232 MRR 1 417-18, cf. RRC 545-6.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PREPARATION: 32 B.C. 53

render this the most moral of civil wars. The propertied classes of Italy
came to his rescue. For much of summer 32 he was organizing an oath to
follow his personal leadership:?83 it was to be taken throughout Italy, and
indeed all the western provinces (that probably meant little more than
the Roman citizens in each).

Of its own free will, all Italy swore allegiance to me, and demanded me as its
general for the war I won at Actium; the Gallic and Spanish provinces, Africa,
Sicily and Sardinia took the same oath. (Res Gestae 25.2)

The oath did nothing to improve Octavian’s legal status, but its moral
implications were extraordinary. It was taken to him personally. There
were a few civilian precedents,” but the nearest analogies were in fact
military, the oath taken by soldiers to their general: and it was
appropriate that Italy and the provinces were ‘demanding Octavian as
their general’ for the war. Besides the backing it gave Octavian, this was
also one way of preparing Italy psychologically for conflict. There were
doubtless others too — for instance, the Res Gestae passage goes on to
speak of more than 700 senators ‘serving under Octavian’s colours’ 785
and such language probably goes back to the events themselves. Of
course, there had been appeals to consensus Italiae, the united sentiment of
all Italy, many times before.28 Now, as usual, the public’s feelings were
doubtless more complex. For one thing, Italy was growling at Octa-
vian’s new financial exactions, severe even by the standards of the last
twenty years.287 And it would be naive to think that the oath was wholly
voluntary. Some communities were indeed ‘excused’ from taking it, for
instance Antony’s own veteran colonies.”88 Still, the claim of harmony
was not mere hypocrisy. A great many senators, for instance, seem to
have come over to Octavian during these final stages;?8° and it seems
likely that only a few of Antony’s colonists exploited Octavian’s
dispensation.2® In go the veterans had refused to fight one another, but
this time it would be different. At last, Italy was almost solid for
Octavian.

283 Cf. esp. von Premerstein 1937 (A 74) and, briefly, Brunt and Moore 1967 (B 215) on RG 25.2;
Syme 1939 (A 93) 284-92; Herrmann 1968 (c 117) 78-89; Linderski 1984 (c 164); Girardet 1990 (c
97) 345-50. The evidence for the oath’s dating is set out by von Premerstein 1937 (A 74) 41; Syme
1939 (A 93) 284-5 suggests, probably rightly, that the Italian cities took the oath not simultaneously
but in sequence.

24 Von Premerstein 1937 (A 74) 27-36; for important qualifications, Herrmann 1968 (c 117)
jo~-89.

75 RG 25.3, cf. n.260 above. The phrase is often taken to imply that all the senators accompanied
Octavian on his campaign: that need not follow. 286 Syme 1939 (A 93) 285-6.

a7 Plut. Ant. 58.2; Dio L.10.4~5, 16.3, 20.3, LI11.2.3; Pliny, HIN xxxvii.1o; cf. Syme 1939 (A 93)
284; Nicolet 1976 (D 104) 95; Yavetz 1969 (A 110) 25-6.

28 Especially Bononia, Suet. Axg. 17.2; but it seems that even here Octavian made attempts to
win them over (Dio L.6.3).

29 Cf. Wallmann 1976 (c 242). 2 Dio 1.6.3, cf. 11.4.6 with Keppie 1983 (E 65) 76.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

54 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

The time for action was approaching, though the summer was
wearing on, and it did not now look as if the decision would be reached
this year. That was in Octavian’s interests, in fact: Antony had his vast
army ready, backed by all the wealth of the East; Octavian’s treasury was
worryingly empty.29! But Octavian’s political preparations, at least, were
almost complete, and in late summer he could declare war. That too
should be done in the right style. War was declared on Cleopatra alone:
she after all was the real enemy. And it was declared in the most Roman
of fashions: Octavian disinterred, perhaps even fabricated, an ancient
fetial rite — a picturesque affair of casting a spear into a symbolically
hostile patch of land.292 Not of.course that Antony was ignored: he was
stripped of the consulship he was to hold the next year, and also of ‘the
rest of his power’293 — presumably the triumvirate which he was still
claiming and, on one possible view, he still held. But he was not yet
declared a public enemy. The moment for that would soon come.2™ For
Antony would surely stand by Cleopatra: and then, would he not be a
self-confessed enemy of Rome?

XI. ACTIUM, 31 B.C.

During winter 32/1 Antony’s force stood ready in Greece. His main fleet
was in the harbour of Actium; but Greece’s western coast is pitted by
natural harbours, and it was best to defend them all. Pockets of ships
were distributed fairly widely — in Methone, for instance, Leucas,
Corcyra, Taenarum and probably Corinth.2% Antony himself wintered
in Patrae, with yet another contingent of ships and men. The next
summer would clearly see the critical campaign, and he could still be
sanguine. True, Italy was lost, and lost more conclusively than he would
have hoped; that was disappointing. But he could reasonably reflect that,
once Octavian had survived the buffeting of the Perusine War, he would
always have the advantage there. In Italy Octavian was the man in
possession: far less adept politicians would have been able to capitalize
on that. Anyway, the politics were virtually over. Antony might still go
through the motions of offering to resign the triumvirate, after he had
won his victory (as he now had to specify): two months later, or possibly
six.2% It all hardly mattered now.

21 Cf. p. 53 and n. 287.

22 Dio x.4.4-5 with Reinhold 1988 (B 150); cf. Livy, 1.32.4 with Ogilvie 1965 (B 135) ad oc.; Rich
1976 (A 81) 56-7, 105-6; Wiedemann 1986 (F 237).

293 yyy GAAnv é£ovoiay wacav, Dio L.4.3 with Reinhold 1988 (B 150) ad loc.; cf. Plut. Ant. 60.1.

24 Antony certainly was declared a bostis at some point (App. BCiv. 1v.45.193, cf. 1v.38.161; Suet.
Aung. 17.2): probably later in 32 or in early 31 rather than after Actium, as Fadinger 1969 (B 42) 245~

$2 argues.
295 Cf. Dio v.11-13; Oros. v1.19.6—7; Strab. vint.4.1-4 (359C); Vell. Pat. 1.84.1, Plut. Ant. 67.5;
Kromayer 1898 (Cc 143) 60. 2% Dio L.7.1-2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACTIUM, 31 B.C. 55

In military terms Antony still looked ahead. He had been unable to
recruit in Italy, but not all orientals were weaklings, and his forces were
probably the larger, possibly 100,000 infantry against Octavian’s 80,000.
The cavalry was equally matched, but Antony’s fleet of 500 men-of-war
was more numerous than Octavian’s and — almost as important — his
were the larger ships.2°7 The way naval battles were now fought, bulk
was likely to count; certainly, it had counted at Naulochus. Antony’s side
was also the wealthier. Octavian’s exactions had doubtless done some-
thing to replenish his treasury, but he could still hardly compete: for one
thing, he had already had to give his troops a precautionary donative.29
Last of all, there was Antony himself, still surely more effective a general
than Octavian despite those Illyrian victories. Antony knew how little
those meant. True, he must have heard impressive things of Agrippa,
who was still virtually untried when last Antony was in the West; he
might prove a worthier adversary. But, everything considered, Antony
still looked to be the winner.

It was clear what his strategy should be. Invading Italy was not an
option, for sound military reasons.2% Antony would have to wait for
Octavian to come to him, just as Pompey had waited in 49-48; and, again
like Pompey, he would hope to harass Octavian’s fleet during the
crossing, when the ships would be terribly cumbersome, with cavalry,
legionaries and baggage on board. Even if they could land, they might
find it hard to support themselves if Antony could maintain his expected
superiority at sea. The lesson of 48 was again there to be learnt, when
Caesar had’ certainly found it very difficult to establish himself with
sufficient numbers of troops. It might still be disconcerting that
Pompey had finally lost, and then in the next civil war the eastern side
had lost again; but Antony could still reflect that Pompey should really
have won at Dyrrhachium, while Brutus and Cassius had fought their
battle too far east.%0! The eastern side should strategically be the
stronger. Sulla was the more telling precedent.

Once again, it all went wrong.*02 The danger in Antony’s position was
simply the necessity to divide his army and fleet among so many
harbours. These various forces could reasonably be expected to rein-
force one another if threatened; besides, the main force at Actium could
be expected to harry any invasion fleet as it sailed down the Adriatic, if
any target further south were chosen for its landing. But Agrippa was

297 Plut. Ast. 61 with Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad Joc., Brunt 1971 (A 9) 501-7. Legend doubtless
exaggerated the superior size of Antony’s ships (perhaps as early as Hor. Epod. 1.1-2), cf. e.g. Prop.
11.11.44, 1v.6.47-50; Plut. Ast. 62.2; Vell. Pat. 1.84.1 with Woodman 1983 (B 203) ad loc.:
Octavian’s were the massive galleys which had defeated Sextus in 36. But Antony’s doubtless were
bigger still. 28 Dio v.7.3. 29 See above, p. 52.

30 Caes. BCiv. 3.7-8, 14, 23-6; cf. CAH 1x? 432. 1 CAH 1x? 432; see above, pp. 6-7.

302 For the early stages of the Actium campaign cf. esp. Kromayer 1899 (Cc 144) 4-28.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

56 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

too quick. Surprisingly early in the 31 season, he struck with an advance
force and took Methone, then launched surprise attacks elsewhere on the
coast, even as far north as Corcyra. Meanwhile Octavian himself
managed to cross, surprisingly unimpeded, to the mainland north of
Corcyra; within a few days he had reached Actium, and occupied the
tactical strongpoint in the area, the hill of Mikalitzi. Soon Octavian had
linked his camp by earthworks to the harbour of Gomaros. We do not
even hear of any resistance, which is astounding. Perhaps there were
operations which our sources omit, perhaps the Actium land-force had
been called away to meet one of Agrtippa’s sudden threats elsewhere.
Anyway, the first tricks had fallen to Octavian, and they turned out to be
decisive.

Antony soon arrived himself from Patrae, and pitched camp near
Punta on the southern coast of the bay. Octavian naturally tried to bring
him to battle before he could concentrate the rest of his fleet or army;
Antony naturally declined. When his troops arrived from their various
stations, Antony established a new camp on the northern side of the
straits, near Preveza. Only the plain of Nicopolis now separated the two
armies, but it was Octavian who refused a land-battle. Antony tried
strenuously to cut Octavian off from the river Louros in his rear, vital to
his water supply, and there was clearly a series of cavalry battles in the
northern plain: the most substantial was won by Statilius Taurus and the
renegade Titius, by now one of Octavian’s commanders. Then, once
again, a contribution of Agrippa was crucial. His fleet took the island of
Leucas, just south west of the mouth of the harbour; this afforded
Octavian a safer anchorage than Gomaros, and made it difficult for
Antony’s other scattered ships to reinforce him. A little later Agrippa
also took Patrae, where there were still ships, and Corinth. Antony was
now under virtual blockade.

The analogy with 48 must again have been felt. This was Dyrrha-
chium over again, but the roles were strangely reversed: it was now the
eastern force under Antony which, like Caesar then, was cut off on the
coast by a stronger army and fleet. Antony naturally thought of breaking
out to the interior of Greece: that was what Caesar had done, and had
gone on to win at Pharsalus. Octavian had already sent his own men into
Greece and Macedonia, while Antony sent Dellius and Amyntas into
Macedonia and Thrace*3 — to seek mercenaries, according to our source
Dio, but probably their brief was a wider one. Soon Antony himself set
out to overtake them. While he was away Sosius tried to break out at sea,
but was beaten by Agrippa. On his return Antony lost another cavalry
battle. By now it looked very bleak. Allied kings had been killed -— Bogud
of Mauretania at Methone, Tarcondimotus with Sosius. Others were

33 Dio 1.13.4. 34 See above, p. 29.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACTIUM, 31 B.C. $7

defecting. Deiotarus Philadelphus of Paphlagonia had gone to Octavian
some time since, and at some point he was joined by Rhoemetalces of
Thrace;>°5 now the much more valuable Amyntas went too. That was
cheering to Horace,>™ and doubtless to Octavian too. Antony’s position
was becoming desperate. Provisions were failing: disease was rife —
particularly, perhaps, malaria and dysentery, worsened by the shortage
of supplies and water. Antony had no option but to withdraw all his
troops to the southern bank, but that is even more waterless than the
north, and the deaths went on.

Romans too were defecting. The most dispiriting was that of
Domitius Ahenobarbus, already mortally ill. Dellius too, notorious for
picking the right moment to change sides, realized that it was now: with
him he took Antony’s battle-plans. Not that they were hard to divine.
The break-out to the interior was a serious option, and it seems to have
been urged by the land-commander Canidius Crassus. But it would have
meant abandoning the fleet; and even if the army could break out to
Thessaly, even if Octavian obliged by offering battle there rather than
relying on attrition, Antony’s army was so wasted by disease that it
would barely be able to fight. Realistically, the battle had to be fought at
sea. Later romantic fiction would represent this as a crazed decision,
influenced by Cleopatra: but that is absurd. Antony had already done
all he could on land; only now, in late summer, did he decide that a naval
battle was the only option left.

At the outset of the campaign Antony’s fleet had outnumbered
Octavian’s, but Agrippa had destroyed some of his squadrons, while
others had been unable to force their way through to join the Actium
fleet. And there was a manning problem as well, for death and desertion
had reduced Antony’s numbers considerably. By now he had no hope at
all of matching Octavian’s numbers: otherwise, indeed, he would have
forced on the sea-battle earlier. He eventually put to sea with perhaps 200
or 250 ships, while Octavian had 400 or more.%? Antony simply burnt
the remainder of his ships: better that than to allow them to fall into
Octavian’s hands.

Antony’s chances of victory were evidently very poor. The most he
could realistically hope for was to break out with as many ships and men
as possible, and this seems to have been in his mind from the beginning:

305 [Plut.} Mor. 2074.

305 “At huc frementes uerterunt bis mille equos|Galli canentes Caesarem’ (Epod. 1x.17—18). That
Epode seems to be a dramatic recreation of the moods of a spectator of the campaign: cf. Nisbet 1984
(B 132) 10-16. 37 Plut. Ant. 62.1, 63.8, 64.

38 The outstanding modern discussions of the battle are by Kromayer 1899 (c 144); Tarn 1931 (c
232); and Carter 1970 (c 51). For further discussion and argument for the views presented here, cf.
Pelling 1986 (c 186) and 1988 (B 138) 272-89, esp. 278-9.

3 Kromayer 1899 (c 144) 30-2; Brunt 1971 (A 9) 508: Pelling 1988 (B 138) 268, 276, 287-8.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

58 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

he shipped his treasure-chest, for instance, an extraordinary thing to do
unless he was planning flight; he also gave orders to carry sails, which
was most unusual for an ancient battle. He could keep his mind a little
open, perhaps: he knew he could not break out without a fight, sea-
battles were often unpredictable, and if things went surprisingly well
then of course he would try to fight it out to the end. The weather might
even be rough — it had been for the last few days before the battle — and
that might add some further unpredictability: his galleons might better
survive a buffeting than Octavian’s slightly lighter ships. Still, the chance
of a break-out in force was always the more likely option. He may not
have told too many of his own troops: it would of course be highly
damaging to morale, for most of them would have to be left to the
victor’s mercy. One need not doubt their surprise and dismay when, in
mid-battle, they realized the truth.3!° But his own mind must have been
clear enough. He must also have known that the break-out was not
going to be easy. Outflanking Octavian’s superior numbers would be
impossible, and the only way was to drive a wedge through the centre.
Even if that could be done, a flight southwards involved a technical
difficulty. The island of Leucas juts out just south of Actium, and with
prevailing winds from the west and north west it would be hard to clear
it under sail.3!1 The best hope was to join the battle as far out to sea as he
could (Octavian would in fact be unlikely to resist this, for he too would
want open waters to exploit his superior numbers and manoeuvrability);
and if possible to delay it till the afternoon, when the wind typically veers
from west to west-north-west.

That indeed is exactly what happened. On the morning of 2 Sep-
tember 31, Antony’s fleet took up its station outside the harbour mouth.
Cleopatra’s squadron of sixty ships rested behind his centre, ready (it
seems) for a concentrated strike on any weak point in Octavian’s line — a
sort of maritime Panzer-tactic, in fact. Octavian’s much longer line
moved to hem them in. Then, most eerily, for hours nothing happened.
Antony was waiting for afternoon; Octavian would be content to wait
much longer, for it was Antony, not he, who needed to break the
blockade by battle. Around midday there was at last some movement of
both fleets to seaward; but still, no real action. The first decisive move
came in early afternoon, for both northern wings — Antony’s right and
Octavian’s left under Agrippa — began to drift further north. It is not
clear who started it. Perhaps it was Agrippa, as our principal source
Plutarch suggests: now that both fleets were in more open sea, he could
reasonably begin an outflanking move. More likely it was Antony,
trying to entice Octavian into leaving a critical gap in the centre of his
line. Anyway, gaps began to open, at least in Antony’s line and perhaps

310 Memorably described by Plut. Ant. 66.6-8. 311 Carter 1970 (c $1) 215-27.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ALEXANDRIA, 30 B.C. 59

in Octavian’s too. Cleopatra’s squadron seized the moment: she hoisted
sail and bore down on the enemy. It is hard to say which side was the
more startled. The squadron forced its way through, perhaps surpris-
ingly easily;3!2 Antony himself moved from his massive flagship to a
quinquereme and followed. So did others, but perhaps not very many. It
is hard to think that even a hundred ships escaped; these had some
legionaries on board, perhaps one hundred apiece — but the bulk of the
fleet, and over three-quarters of the army, remained.

Once Antony and Cleopatra had sailed away, the rest of their fleet saw
little point in the battle. Some galleons made their way back to the
harbour in a peculiarly undignified way, backing water in a halting crab-
like movement to port.3!3 There was perhaps a little fighting, but
nothing very fierce. The whole battle produced only 5,000 casualties, an
amazingly small number by the standards of a sea-battle. Octavian did
his best to make it a little more spectacular: a few ships were fired;314 and
he took the ostentatious precaution of spending the night on board ship.

But it was hard to disguise the truth. The Battle of Actium was a very
lame affair. Such as it was, Antony and Cleopatra arguably won it: at
least, they achieved all they could reasonably have hoped. But they had
so decisively lost the campaign that the success made little difference.
There was some talk of the surviving army saving itself on land, and
some forlornly set out for Macedonia;3!5 but it was all highly unrealistic.
They soon went over to Octavian, who gave generous terms.3!6 The
Battle of Actium delayed the end for a year; nothing more.

XII. ALEXANDRIA, 30 B.C.

Antony had concentrated almost, but not quite, all of his legions for the
Actium campaign. The exception was a force of four legions under L.
Pinarius Scarpus in Cyrene, left probably to protect Egypt from political
disorder, for like most of the Ptolemies Cleopatra had many internal
enemies. Anyway, they were now Antony’s only hope, and the remains
of his fleet crossed not to Alexandria but to Paraetonium, the nearest
port to Pinarius’ force. But, all too predictably, the hope proved ill
founded: Pinarius swiftly declared for Octavian; and the dispirited
Antony returned to Alexandria. Cleopatra had already been there for

312 Or so Plut. Ant. 66.5—6 suggests: that is not necessarily reliable (cf. Pelling 1988 (B 138) on
Aunt. 65-6), but the low casualty figures do suggest that there was no fierce fighting.

313, Hor. Epod. 1x.19~20, ‘hostiliumque navium portu latent|puppes sinistrorsum citae’, a striking
epigram. These were probably the remains of Antony’s right, whose northern movement would
have left them uncomfortably far from the harbour mouth. Cf. Pelling 1986 (c 186).

314 Augustan poets made the most of this. It was the best they could do. Cf. Hor. Cara. 1.37.13,
‘vix una sospes navis ab ignibus ...’; and Virg. Aen. v1i1.694—-5; then Dio t.34, whose bartle-

description is as usual wholly unreliable. 35 Dio t1.1.4; cf. Plut. Ant. 67.8.
316 Plut. Ant. 68.2—5, with Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad lo.; Keppie 1983 (& 65) 79-80.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Mikalitzi
(Octavian's camp)
Bay of
Gomaros

Ambraciot
Gulf

Preveza @
(Antony's second camp)

Punta

(Antony's first and
third camp)

ACTIUM

Fig. 1. Actium: fleet positions at the beginning of che battle

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ALEXANDRIA, 30 B.C. 61

some time, acting decisively. Many of the suspected nobles were
murdered, and Artavasdes too was hauled from his captivity and
executed. She also plundered extensively to gather money for the armies:
hopelessly enough, for by now no money was likely to retain their
loyalty.

Depressing news continued to arrive throughout the winter. The
intelligent princes Antony had encouraged in Asia Minor were alert
enough to know they should change sides. Amyntas had already gone at
Actium, and Herod of Judaea shortly followed his example.3!7 So did
lesser men, for instance the sons of Tarcondimotus of Cilicia;3!8 we do
not hear when Archelaus and Polemo declared for Octavian, but that too
was probably soon during the winter.3!9 Octavian himself had spent
some time in Samos and Ephesus after the end of the Actium campaign,
and was beset by embassies, for instance from Rhosus and probably
Mylasa;32° for the cities too recognized who was their master now. By the
end of 31 Octavian had effectively taken over Asia Minor, with his own
man Q. Didius as governor of Syria. The loyalty Antony had always
inspired still paid some slight dividends, for some gladiators were so
determined to join him that they fought their way from Cyzicus through
Galatia and Cilicia to Syria.321 But that was the only good news, and that
was not much.

At the end of the year Octavian returned briefly to Italy, where there
was a little trouble. Doubtless the financial discontent had not disap-
peared, though there were now some remissions; but a more immediate
problem was presented by a large body of veterans, both his own and
those who had come over to him after the battle. They had been sent
back to Brundisium, and, just as their comrades had after Naulochus,322
they were insisting on their dispensability: for everyone knew that the
war was virtually concluded. They wanted immediate demobilization,
and that meant land. The obvious way to find it was to expropriate
Antony’s Italian partisans, yet it seems that there were precious few of
those.323 Agrippa had been sent back to Italy soon after Actium,
apparently because problems were already looming. Maecenas was
already there.32* Octavian himself could afford only a month in Italy, and

317, Herod secured formal pardon from Octavian in Rhodes in spring, 30; but he-had already given
help to Q. Didius in resisting the Antonian gladiators. 318 Dio t.7.4; cf. above, pp. 29, 56.

319 Soon after Actium Archelaus was explicitly excused from any reprisals, along with Amyntas
(Dio Lt.2.1). That suggests that he had gone over at once. Polemo, away on the eastern frontier,
would take longer to hear of Actium, but nothing suggests that he delayed for long.

320 RDGE 38.III (= EJ? 301) and perhaps 60 (= Ej? 303); cf. Millar 1973 (c 175) 58. Perhaps
Samos too: Reynolds 1982 (B 270) doc. 13, with Badian 1984 (B 208) 168-9.

321. There they reluctantly made terms with Didius. Most soon met their deaths.

32 See above, p. 37- 33 See above, p. 53.

3% It is just possible that Maecenas himself was at Actium, as Eleg. ad Maec. 45-8 implies: so
Wistrand 1938 (B 200) 16-19. If so, he returned very soon afterwards. But Dio L1.3.5 seems clearly to

suggest that Maecenas had been left in charge at Rome during the campaign, and that is more likely
to be right; so Syme1g39 (4 93) 292; cf. Woodman 1983 (B 203) on Vell. Pat. 11.88.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

62 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

proceeded no further than Brundisium: large numbers of senators and
knights, and many of the city plebs, poured forth from Rome to meet
him. He was also met, somewhat less obsequiously, by the veterans. He
made a show of asserting discipline, but in fact largely capitulated: those
‘who had served him throughout’ — probably that means those who had
fought on his side at Actium ~ were to get land, the others (probably the
Antonians) only money. Even this meant settling perhaps 40,000 or
more.325 Where was the land to come from? Italy was quaking. The risk
was all too clear that the trauma of the Perusine War would return. There
was only one alternative, to buy the land rather than seize it, and that was
what Octavian chose. Of course he did not have the money; but the
treasure of Egypt beckoned, and the soldiers and the sellers of land had
to be content with promises. There continued to be rumblings during
Octavian’s absence, including a mysterious ‘conspiracy’ led by young M.
Lepidus, the former triumvir’s son.326 But Italy would have to wait.
Quite evidently, the final defeat of Antony and Cleopatra had to come
first. Egypt’s spoils were needed now.

It took a long time for Octavian’s forces to reach Alexandria. With
Syria safe, he might perhaps have shipped them to the Phoenician ports;
but that too would take time, for they would need to travel in several
waves, and Octavian preferred to march them overland from the Ionian
coast. It was July before they approached Egypt. By then Antony and
Octavian had been exchanging embassies for some time.327 Octavian
offered nothing, though it does seem that he was more encouraging to
Cleopatra. For one thing, he was worried that she might destroy her
treasure, which Octavian needed so vitally: she was already making a
great show of piling it together and packing it round with inflammable
flax and tow. There was even some talk of allowing her children
(presumably the younger ones, not the embarrassing Caesarion) to retain
the throne, provided always that she surrendered Antony or killed him.
All that was not unthinkable. Alexandria had seen mysterious deaths
before; Rome had appointed many a surprising client king. Cleopatra
herself may well have taken the proposals seriously, more seriously than
Antony would have wished: certainly, Octavian’s messengers seem to
have been able to reach her and talk to her privately — very odd, unless
she was giving them some encouragement. But such an outcome was
never very likely, and it may be that Octavian never intended more than
to sow mutual suspicions, or restrain Cleopatra from premature hopeless
suicide. By July it was clear that it would be fought out to the end.

32 Dio 11.4.2-8 with Reinhold 1988 (B 150) ad /or.; Keppie 1983 (E 65) 73-82, especially 85.

326 Vell. Pat. 11.88, cf.-Livy, Per. 133; Dio Ltv.15.4; Suet. Agg. 19.1: probably in 30 rather than 31
(as App. BCiv. 1v.50.217 clearly implies), even though énierat at Vell. Pat. 1.88.1 cannot give the
precise dating that Woodman claims. Cf. Wistrand 1958 (B 200).

327 Plut. Ant. 72-3 with Pelling 1988 (B 138) ad Joc.; Dio 11.6-8.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ALEXANDRIA, 30 B.C. 63

Octavian planned a simple pincer movement. Cornelius Gallus had
taken over and reinforced Pinarius’ legions, and he would attack from
the west while Octavian’s own troops completed their long journey
from the east. Oddly, Antony himself moved to the western front (and
was pretty ineffective there); yet the east was clearly the more important
front. Octavian’s difficult desert march to Pelusium turned out to be
wholly unopposed, and Pelusium itself fell quickly, perhaps by trea-
chery. Soon Octavian’s army appeared before Alexandria itself. On 31
July there was a cavalry battle, which went quite well for Antony; but the
storming of the city itself was clearly imminent.

During the night of 31 July came a most curious event, or so the story
was later told—a mysterious sound of divine music, a strange procession
as Dionysus himself abandoned the city.328 What really happened is not
beyond conjecture. There was an ancient Roman custom, the evocatio of
the gods of an enemy city before a battle: the Roman general would call
them out and invite them to take up a new friendly Roman home. The
rite was probably enacted before the fall of Carthage in 146;329 it was also
used in the routine capture of a Cilician town, Isaura Vetus, in 75 B.c.330
Octavian was always sensitive to the use he could make of antique
custom. The fall of Alexandria would be the greatest conquest of an
enemy city since Carthage itself, and Cleopatra was the greatest threat to
Rome since Hannibal. Octavian was the man who had solemnly recalled
the old fetial formula for declaring war; he would hardly neglect an
opportunity like this, and evocatio is exactly what we should expect.
Antony had played Dionysus-Osiris for long enough. Now he was
indeed to be deserted by his god.

On 1 August Octavian attacked, and Alexandria fell. First came a
naval fiasco in the harbour: Antony’s whole fleet deserted to Octavian.
Then came an infantry exchange, which Octavian once again won
decisively. Antony returned to the palace, and he died. Plutarch and after
him Shakespeare tell the story magnificently ~ the false news that
Cleopatra is dead, the slow removal of the armour, the slave who kills
himself rather than strike his lord, the bungled death-blow, the wretched
writhing as Cleopatra and her maids haul him into the mausoleum. At
least we can believe that in the tumult Antony heard confused reports,
and he may well have falsely believed that Cleopatra had taken her own
life: it was the natural thing to do. But in fact Octavian’s men took her
captive first, and she lived on for nine more days.33!

Octavian himself entered Alexandria without resistance, and in a
careful speech announced his forgiveness of the city. But his mercy had

328 Plut. Ant. 75.
329 Macrob. Sat. 11.9.6; Serv. ad Aen. x11.841; doubted by Rawson 1973 (F 203).

3% Hall 1972 (B 240); Le Gall 1976 (D 210).
331 For the date of her death (probably 10 August) cf. Skeat 1953 (c 219) 98-100.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

64 I. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

its bounds. He took the treasure, of course. Caesarion was hunted down
and killed; so was Antyllus, Antony’s eldest son; there were other
victims too, including Cassius Parmensis, the last of Iulius Caesar’s
assassins, and Canidius Crassus, the general of the Actium campaign. But
many were spared, including Cleopatra’s other children ~ at least for the
present.332 They were being kept for the triumph, and the taunts of the
Roman crowd. And so, it seems, was Cleopatra herself: but here
Octavian’s plan went astray.

The story of her death is still more extraordinary than Antony’s, and
very hard to estimate. The ancient sources, especially Plutarch and
Dio,333 had no doubt that Octavian was trying to prevent her suicide,
and used threats to her children to ensure that she stayed alive. This was,
of course, to make certain that she would be displayed humiliatingly at
his triumph in Rome; and, for the ancient sources, it was when Cleopatra
realized the horror of this fate that she finally determined to kill herself.
She bathed herself, and dressed in her finest regal attire — a strange
version of the bathing and dressing that were important parts of a real
funeral. Then she clasped the asp to her arm; she took her seat on the
regal throne, flanked by the devoted maids Iras and Charmion who chose
to join their mistress in death. The guards burst in to find them there in
their tableau of death; Cleopatra had won her final marvellous victory.
And it was the most appropriate of deaths, for the double cobra was an
old Ptolemaic symbol, the #raeus: on a Ptolemaic head-dress the cobras
would rear up, as ifto strike any enemy of the throne.334 Now Cleopatra’s
very life had become hostile to her. It was right for the royal cobra to
strike.

The version goes back very close to the events themselves. In outline
it had taken shape by the time Horace wrote his Cleopatra Ode a few years
later.335 But modern scholars are sceptical.336 They point to the advan-
tages to Octavian of having her dead: even as it was, trouble continued in
Egypt for some months,’ and ic would have been more perilous if
Cleopatra had remained a potential figurehead. Would it not be better for
Octavian to remove her? If actual murder was too crude, then at least he

332 Cleopatra Selene survived to marry Juba of Mauretania; Alexander Helios walked in the
triumph of 29, but is not heard of after that and was probably murdered. Ptolemy Philadelphus is not
mentioned at the triumph, and probably died even sooner.

333 The same tradition is reflected by Flor. 11.21.9-10 and Oros. v1.19.18. It probably owes its
currency to Livy, who had a taste for such final scenes (cf. his Sophoniba, xxx.1 2-15) and certainly
dwelt on the importance to Cleopatra of the triumph (fr. 54, od @prapBevdoouar).

34 Cf. esp. Griffiths 1961 (c 105), Nisbet and Hubbard 1970 (B 133) on Hor. Cara. 1.37.

333 1.39.

3% Cf. esp. Nisbet and Hubbard 1970(B 133) on Hor Carav. 1.37. It is often stated confidently that
Octavian ordered or connived in her suicide; cf. e.g. Grant 1974 (Cc 101) 224-7; Huzar 1978 (c 122)
227; Syme 1939 (A 93) 298-9 is only a little more cautious.

337 Dio 1.17.4 with Reinhold 1988 (B 150) ad /oc.; Strab. xvii.1.52—3 (819C).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

RETROSPECT 65

could leave poison, or indeed cobras, pointedly available —a glamorous
equivalent of the revolver on the officer’s table. Yet such a view raises
more difficulties than it solves. It leaves it unclear why Octavian should
have allowed her to live on for those nine days; we are even told that he
foiled two earlier suicide attempts.*38 Octavian must have known his
mind well before the city was taken. In the turmoil of the first day
Cleopatra could readily have died, and it would have been easy to portray
it as suicide, doubtless by a barbaric method. Octavian would have
spoken regretfully of the mercy he would have shown: that sort of scene
was to become commonplace in the early Principate. But the impli-
cations of the story we have are very different, and much less flattering to
Octavian. No one could escape the inference that he was trying to keep
her alive against her will, but was outwitted. Octavian was usually a
more accomplished propagandist than this. It is surely better to assume
that, if he kept her alive at all, he genuinely did want her for the triumph,
just as his supporters wished.339 Some of the details may well be
fictional — perhaps the famous story of the basket of figs, for instance.
But, at least in outline, her splendid, serene, triumphant death is
probably history, not legend.

XIII. RETROSPECT

Why did Antony and Cleopatra lose? Of course one can point to their
political errors, and Octavian’s greater shrewdness. There was Antony’s
insensitivity to the western crisis, which misled him into keeping his
legions on the eastern frontier for too long; there was the indelicacy with
which he flaunted his liaison with Cleopatra; there were the Donations of
Alexandria — pure spectacle, but once again so damaging before an
Italian audience. On the other side, there was Octavian’s adept manipu-
lation of Italian public opinion, exploiting propaganda with greater
power and insight than had ever been done before. It is so easy to isolate
these facts that we naturally assume they were decisive. They certainly
made a difference: how big a difference, one may doubt. It remains true
that, with Antony so confined to the East, Italy would have favoured
Octavian overwhelmingly in any case; it remains true that, once all the
politics had been played out, at the beginning of the 31 campaign Antony
still looked as if he would win. The East was as solid for him as the West
for Octavian, and the military factors were on his side. Octavian

338 Plut. Ant. 79.3-4, 82.4-5.

339 Cf. esp. Prop 1v.6.63—6. If it were too dangerous to let her live longer than the triumph, she
could of course be removed then: a tawdry execution would not be necessary, but an accident might
happen a little later, or a wasting disease. These things could be managed.

#0 Though some may not: cf. Pelling 1988 (B 138), 318-23.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

66 1. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD

certainly outwitted Antony in their political exchanges; but it was not
this that finally brought the victory.

Perhaps it is easier to isolate the decisive moments. One is obvious, the
autumn of 36, when Antony was failing in Parthia and Octavian was
crushing Sextus: a suggestive contrast for the Italian public to ponder,
and also a startling one — victory could not have been expected to dwell
with the weak unmilitary Octavian rather than Antony, the greatest
captain of the world. But there are at least two more turning-points.
One, rather inconspicuously, was the death of Calenus in qo. It was that
which robbed Antony of Gaul, and turned him so firmly eastwards; and,
in the longer term, that gave Octavian not merely Gaul but also the
whole West. And Calenus’ death was just an accident, just Antony’s bad
luck. The second was the first stage of the Actium campaign itself, with
Octavian’s swift unimpeded crossing and, more important, Agrippa’s
series of debilitating thrusts on Antony’s scattered forces. It was then
that, within a few weeks, Antony started to look the loser rather than the
winner; thereafter, the fighting simply ran its course. The true history of
those few weeks remains hard to grasp. Why was Antony so dilatory in
his resistance? Why was Octavian able to take over the decisive land
station at Actium so easily? We shall never know; perhaps once again
luck played a great part. But those few weeks decided the future of the
Mediterranean world.

Octavian’s greater political shrewdness should suggest a different
reflection. Antony and Cleopatra might well have won the Actium
campaign. If they had, the task of settling the world would in some ways
have been easier for them. Their marriage — for marriage, unequivocally,
it would then have been — would provide a most attractive register to
describe and suggest a new harmony of West and East. That would be
particularly true in any culture which thought of its royalty as gods: this
would be a divine marriage, a most certain guarantee of the world’s
prosperity. But such cultures were the cultures of the East: Antony and
Cleopatra would be both gods and monarchs, and the fate of Iulius
Caesar made clear how sensitive such topics were in Rome. Antony had
shown his statesmanship in other ways, especially in his penetrating
judgment of the individuals he raised to power in the East, and in the
style and range of his settlement. But his failure to appease Italian
sentiment would surely have turned out to be a decisive flaw. The union
of the Greco-Roman world was always a precarious thing, and it is hard
to think that it could have survived the continuing dominion of
Cleopatra and Antony. Looking a generation ahead, one could see what
might happen: two worlds, not one, with Antyllus (perhaps) succeeding
to some sort of control in the West, and Caesarion a more traditional
monarch in the East. Or rather, that was the best that could be hoped for;

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS 67

a further debilitating series of revolts and civil wars, once again fought
out in Italy and Greece, was just as likely. And no one could see what
would emerge at the end.

Enthusiasm for Octavian comes less naturally to us now than fifty
years ago. ‘Because he stood for something more than mere ambition he
could draw a nation to him in the coming struggle’34! — one would not
write that now. We admire the political shrewdness which forwarded
ambition so well, but we admire it grudgingly: we have seen too many
similar leaders since, and what they have meant for the world. Now the
story is once again told, not as Octavian’s triumph, but as the tragedy of
Antony and Cleopatra. But, still, they could not have coped with success,
and Octavian could: his mastery of Italian propaganda may not have
won him the war, but it did much to win the ensuing peace. For Rome,
the right man won.

ENDNOTE: CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
I. THE TERMINAL DATE OF THE TRIUMVIRATE

This is notoriously disputed. For thorough discussion of the evidence and
bibliography, reaching opposite conclusions, cf. esp. Fadinger 1969 (B 42) 98—
133, Gabba 1970 (B 55) Ixviii-Ixxix.

The Lex Titia of 27 November 43 established the triumvirate for five years: its
terminal date was 31 December 38 and the term was more precisely five years
and a little over a month: It was renewed for a further term, but not until the
conference of Tarentum in 37 (above, p. 27). The disputed question is the
terminal date fixed at the time of this renewal, whether 31 December 33 or 31
December 32.

At RG 7.1 Augustus claims to have held the triumvir per continuos annos decem|
cuvexéat Ereaw Séxa (cf. Suet. Aug. 27.1): i.e. clearly, from 27 November 43 to
31 December 33: cf. Brunt — Moore ad /oc. I agree with those who regard this as
decisive. Thus the Fasti Capitolini, inscribed under Augustus, include the
triumvirs before the consuls in their entry for 1 January 37 (rather than 36): the
second five-year term had retrospectively been fixed as beginning then. App. I//.
28. 80 shows that Appian regarded the triumvirate as due to end at the end of 32
rather than 33: 5vo yap €Aecnev Eryn 77 Sevrépg mevraetia THadEe THS apx7s [of 1
January 33], but that seems to be his own misinterpretation: even though in I//.
Appian is in general drawing on Augustus’ Axsobiography, it would not be
surprising if Augustus was delicately vague in that work about his status in 32,
and it would be in Appian’s manner to fill out the gap with his own explanation.
BCiv. v.95.398, émet 5€ 6 xpdvos EAnye THs apxys ... [of Tarentum], perhaps
implies that Appian wrongly thought that the triumvirs still held office in 37,
when in fact this had a/ready expired (cf. Dio xLvutt.5 4.6): in that case he would
naturally assume that the five-year renewal would last from 36 to the end of 32.
As Antony and Octavian were due to assume the consulship on 1 January 31, it

1 Charlesworth, CAH x! 65.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

68 ENDNOTE

was tempting to infer that the triumvirate was due to expire on the previous day,
and that perhaps misled Appian. But such extensions usually went in five-year
terms, and at Tarentum the triumvirs’ first priority was to legalize their current
position retroactively and therefore to backdate the new term to 1 January 37.

The oddity is in fact not that they renewed their term only to December 33
(that is explained sufficiently by the taste for five-year terms and the need for
retrospective recognition in 37); but that at Misenum, when they completed
their consular lists for the following years, they had fixed on 31 rather than 32s
the date for their own consulship. They might then already have anticipated that
a second quinquennium would expire in 33 rather than 32. But that may well
have been Antony’s choice: he was in a strong position at both Brundisium and
Misenum, and the Antonians Ahenobarbus and Sosius were due to be consuls in
32. Antony may well have been content to rely on them to support him and
embarrass Octavian in a crucial year.

2. OCTAVIAN’S ‘TRIBUNICIAL SACROSANCTITY’

Dio x1x.15.5—6 clearly implies that Octavian was granted this in 36: ‘they [the
people] voted him... protection from insult in word or deed (76 pire Epyw pyre
Adyw 7 0BpilecBar): anyone who committed such an outrage was to fall liable to
the same penalties as in the case of a tribune’. (On the terminology cf. Bauman
1981 (C. 20)). He also received the right to sit on the tribunician bench, sbid.; the
following year sacrosanctity was extended to Octavia and Livia, Dio xix. 38.1.
But App. BCiv. v.132.548 says that in 36 ‘they’ elected Octavian Syjpapyos és dei,
i.e. presumably gave him fribunicia potestas, ‘encouraging him, it seems, to
replace his previous dpx7 [the triumvirate] with this permanent one’: Oros.
v1.18. 34 also attests a grant of full fribunicia potestas in 36. At L1.19.6 Dio says that
Octavian was voted fribunicia potestas in 30; then, oddly enough, at L111.32.5—6 he
records a similar vote in 23. In fact Augustus certainly counted his frib. pot. from
23 (RG 4.4), and the easiest resolution of the evidential tangle seems to be to
assume that Dio xL1x.15.5—< is right about sacrosanctity. The misinterpretation
of Appian and Orosius is then unsurprising. Dio L111.32.5 will then correctly
record the final vote to confer frib. pot. in 23, and L111.32.6 makes it clear that the
honour was then accepted. At L1.19.6 Dio specifies only an offer of trib. pot. in 30;
at LI.20.4 he says that Octavian accepted ‘all but a few’ of the honours voted on
that occasion — admittedly surprising phraseology, if the ‘rib. pot. was among
those he rejected, but perhaps not impossible (Dio elsewhere tends to present
catalogues of honours voted as if they were generally accepted). So Last 1951 (c
153)

Some prefer to assume that Octavian provisionally accepted trib. pot. in 36, but
only on condition that both he and Antony laid down the triumvirate; on this
view the proposal lapsed when Antony refused, but Octavian managed to
preserve sacrosanctity from the original offer: cf. e.g. Schmitthenner 1958 (c
304) 191 n.2, Palmer 1978 (Cc 184) 322-3. That is possible. Some, e.g. von
Premerstein 1937 (A 74) 260-6, suggest that Octavian accepted full ¢rib. pot. in
36, then renounced it at some time (probably early 27) before re-accepting it in
23; but in that case it is odd that this first ¢rib. pot. is never mentioned in

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS 69

contemporary documents, nor its renunciation in the literary sources. Others,
e.g. Kromayer 1888 (C 141) 40, Grant 1946 (B 322) 446-53, Jones 1960 (A 47) 10,
94-5, Reinhold 1988 (8 150) 229-30, prefer to assume that Octavian was allowed
the tribunician ius auxilii in 30: this rests on Dio L1.19.6, where Dio connects the
ius auxilii with the conferring of trib. pot., a notice which that view anyway has to
reject or explain in the way outlined above; and it was anyway ‘not a Roman
habit of thought to decompose the pofestas itself’ in this manner (Last 1951 (C
153) 101).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 2

POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.c. TO A.D. 14

J. A. CROOK

I. INTRODUCTION

With the victory of Iulius Caesar’s heir there began — though it is
apparent only to historical hindsight — both a distinct phase in the history
of Europe, the ‘Augustan Age’, and a distinct epoch in the standard
divisions of world history, the ‘Roman Empire’. That fact has always
constituted a problem for historians, from the earliest writers about
Augustus until now, in that Augustus was both an end and a beginning.
The temptation is for chronological narrative to be given up — for time,
as it were, to stop — at the beginning of the Principate (whether that be
put in 27 Or 23 or 19 B.C. orin some other year), giving way to thematic
accounts of ‘institutions’ of the Roman Empire as initiated by its
‘founder’. Augustus did, indeed, ‘found’ the Roman Empire; but the
danger of succumbing to the thematic temptation is that it makes the
institutions he initiated look too much the product of deliberation and
the drawing-board, whereas they need to be seen as arising, incomplete
and tentative, out of the vicissitudes of a continuing political storv. That
story will be told in the present chapter.!

The sources of evidence for the reign of Augustus, subsequent to the
‘triumviral’ period narrated in chapter 1 above, are too multifarious to be
described generally here,? yet in some ways they are far from satisfactory
all the same, and the Augustan beginnings of many institutions of the
Roman Empire remain hard to detect. The narratives we have are also of
such a kind as to lure people into placing too much emphasis on minor
turbulences. One or two features of the evidence need to be brought to
the reader’s attention. The first is that the only full-scale ancient
chronological narrative of Augustus’ reign that has come down to us is
the relevant part (Books ti-Lv1) of the Histories, in Greek, by Cassius
Dio, a consular senator of the Severan age.? We are fortunate that, for a

' To be read in conjunction with the military story cold in ch. 4.

2 On the main literary sources see CAH x! 866-76. Epigraphic documents: Ehrenberg and
Jones, znd edn 1955 (B 227) (the paperback reprint of 1976 and 1979, containing important addenda)
(EJ). Translations: AN. Select sources in English: Chisholm and Ferguson 1981 (a 16).

3 Millar 1964 (B 128); Manuwald 1979 (B 121).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

INTRODUCTION 71

good deal of the period, the full narrative written by Dio survives, as
opposed to the Byzantine abridgements of him with which historians of
the post-Augustan period have mostly to be content; but there are a
number of small gaps, due not to any sinister cause but to the mere loss of
leaves from a codex, where we are reduced either to the abridgements or
to nothing of Dio at all.4 The loss thus caused to the detailed picture of
the last twenty years of the reign is disproportionately great, leaving all
too much room for conjecture and making inevitable some imbalance of
emphasis upon the first half of the reign.

A second feature of Dio’s Histories about which notice must be given
is the peculiarity of Book x11. It consists almost entirely of an artificial
debate, set in 29 B.c., between Agrippa and Maecenas, as advisers to the
future Augustus, on the relative merits of a ‘democratic’ or a ‘monarchic’
state; the speech of Maecenas advocating the latter is enormously the
longer.5 The prevailing view, here accepted, is that the Maecenas-
speech, at least, is a démarche composed by Dio in the hope of influencing
the policy of government in his own age, and cannot be used as direct
evidence for what was intended or was the case at the time when it is
supposed to have been spoken.

The two major literary sources, apart from the Histories of Dio, are
Suetonius’ lives of Augustus and Tiberius: the Lives are immensely
important, but they are organized thematically rather than chronologi-
cally.6 In any case, Suetonius and Dio being non-contemporary sources,
the question arises what their sources may have been, and how reliable.
Of contemporary material there survive today Augustus’ own Res Gestae
(as well as other important inscriptions and papyri), the relevant parts of
the Roman History of Velleius Paterculus,’ and Strabo’s Geography. We
know that there was much more: Augustus wrote an autobiographical
fragment (going down only to 25 B.c.), and there were collections of his
letters and sayings; Agrippa, too, wrote memoirs, and we hear of various
contemporaries and near-contemporaries who may have narrated the
events of the reign — though not a word of them survives.® Livy
continued his History down to 9 B.c.; but of that work we possess only
the so-called Periochae or ‘Tables of Contents’, and to the important
question whether Livy was the main source of the narrative of Dio for

‘ 6-5 B.c. excerpt only; 4-3 B.c. no Dio at all; 2 B.c. begins with excerpt, becomes full again, but
ends with excerpt; 1 B.c., A.D. 1 and 3, excerpt only; A.D. 8, nothing except a scrap of excerpt at the
end; A.D. 9, full Dio except for a gap after the ‘Varian disaster’, where there is only excerpt; summer
A.D. 13 to Summer A.D. 14, excerpt Only.

5 Millar 1964 (B 128) 102-18; McKechnie 1981 (B 116); Espinosa Ruiz 1982 (c 84).

$ Wallace-Hadrill 1983 (B 190) 10-15; Gascou 1984 (B 59) 390-6.

7 Vell. Pat. 11.88-123, ed. Woodman 1983 (B 203), with commentary.

8 E.g. Aufidius Bassus; Servilius Nonianus (on whom Syme in Hermes 92 (1964) 408-14 = Syme
1970 (B 178) 91-1069).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

72 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

the Augustan period as he had been for the previous period, the answer
seems to be that he was probably not. That leaves the historian of
Augustus in the uncomfortable position that his main narrative source is
itself dependent upon an unknown and lost source as to whose
credentials no judgment can be made.

Of the inscriptions, abundant and of the first importance, though all
call for careful interpretation, only one group would really baffle the
reader without a word of explanation: the lists known as the Fasti and the
Calendars.!° The Fasti are chronological lists, on stone, of the annual
Roman consuls or of those who celebrated triumphs, from early times,
the bare lists being sometimes accompanied by brief annotations of other
events. The most important surviving set, which includes both consuls
and ¢riumphatores, is called the Fasti Capitolini, and was inscribed on an
Augustan triumphal arch at the southern end of the Forum Romanum.!!
It is crucial to realize that those Fasti are not, as we have them, age-old
primary material but a learned compilation, set up entire at a single
moment, not for a historical but for a propaganda purpose. Sets of
consular Fasti were also erected in the municipalities, who added their
local magistrates, and some corporations kept such lists: the vicomagistri
furnish a good consular list down to A.D. 3. The Calendars were lists of
festivals and other events organized under the days of the year;'? there
was no doubt an official Roman set, but the ones that, in more or less
fragmentary states, have come down to us belonged to municipalities or
corporations or even private persons. The most useful are the Fasti
Praenestini, from the forvm of Praeneste: they, too, were a learned
construction, the work of the antiquarian Verrius Flaccus, the tutor of
Augustus’ grandsons, Gaius and Lucius Caesar.

The quantity of new information available today that was not in the
possession of those who wrote on Augustus in the first edition of the
Cambridge Ancient History is small, consisting of a few inscriptions and
papyri — not but what some of those are of high significance. But an
enormous enlargement of the historian’s task in handling the evidence
for the Augustan age has resulted from three conceptual developments.
Scholars have come, first, to see that the physical monuments ~—
buildings, art-objects, coins — are central and not merely corroboratory
evidence: they were, to the Romans, speaking monuments, and they
spoke politically.'3 Secondly, that appreciation is part of a wider
enlargement of perspective, in that we are required to view symbolism

9 Manuwald 1979 (B 121).

10 Texts in EJ?; edition, Degrassi 1947 and 1963 (B 224) XIII, fascs. 1 and 2.

11 Latest arguments, Coarelli 1985 (£ 19) 11 263-308.

12 Ovid’s Fasti is a versification of the calendar material for half a year.

13 Hélscher 1984 (F 424); Hannestad 1986 (F 409); Simon 1986 (F 577); Zanker 1987 (F 632).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

30-17 B.C. 73

and myth-making as an integral function of all societies, and a nation’s
political symbols and images as essential to the understanding of any
segment of its history. Finally, there stretches a vast field, on whose
battles scarcely any historian has been competent to be more than an
onlooker — the works of the famous figures of Augustan literature. A
present trend amongst literary specialists is to see those writings as
through-and-through political, whether as propaganda for the political
regime or as in more or less covert resistance against it, asserting either
‘Augustan values’ or those of the ‘alternative society’. The historian
cannot avoid the challenge to regard that material also as central rather
than peripheral, though his sense of the impossibility of mastering all the
evidence is thereby greatly aggravated.!4

II. 30-17 B.C.

Actium, though it is convenient to historians as a punctuation mark (Dio
says we should date the years of the new ruler’s ‘monarchy’ from 2
September 31 8.c.),!5 and was convenient to the victor as a symbol, was
not quite the end of civil war. A campaign had to be mounted for
Egypt,'6and 1 August 30 B.c., Aegypto capsa, is the real ending date, with
the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra following hard upon it.

Caesar!’ now had, at just under thirty years of age, all the power there
was, but not yet — ifever— was there a ‘happy ever after’, for there was no
necessary acquiescence. The presuppositions of republican political life
did not disappear overnight, and though many had gone and many
survivors leapt on to the winning bandwagon, opposition did not
instantly die away. That fact has received much emphasis in recent
scholarship, to the point of finding in ‘opposition’ the key to most of
what happened down to 17 B.c.,!8 but it is best not to exaggerate: such
opposition had no sufficient base of power to force Caesar to take or
refrain from any action. It is, perhaps, a matter of the right language to
use, for there were certainly considerations that he had to face. Victory
cast into his lap, along with it, all current problems and all future
policies. He held power as long as he satisfied the various elements in the
body politic — the armies, mostly wanting demobilization on good
terms,!9 his supporters who had made victory a reality, the plebs of
Rome, too large, politicized and volatile to ignore,” and the surviving
governing class, without whom an empire could not be maintained. And

'* Literature of the age discussed in ch. 19 below. '5 Dio tt.t.2. 6 Ch. 1 above, pp. 59-65.
7 He will always be so named in this chapter, until he becomes Augustus.

8 Especially Sattler 1960 (p 63) and Schmitthenner 1962 (c 305).

A major politico-agrarian problem; see Brunt 1971 (A 9) 332-42.

N. Purcell, CAH 1x2, ch. 17.

Boas

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

74 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. I4

there were pre-existing structures to which, for the very sake of power,
he must relate himself, and which could not be wished away, such as
career expectations and c/ientelae.

A career reward for an important supporter may be the banal
explanation of the first momentous decision taken after Cleopatra’s
death, with which our tale begins. Egypt was a new responsibility. The
question was, how that land should be governed; the answer, that it
should be a province of the Roman empire, but with an eques, not a
senator, as its governor. The choice may, at the time, have been obvious:
simply, the member of the victorious junta who had successfully handled
the Egyptian campaign and who deserved a major reward. That Gaius
Cornelius Gallus?! was only an egues was perhaps of secondary or no
consideration. Like Dio and Tacitus,” with hindsight we seek a
principle for the consigning of Egypt, ever after, to an eques: the crucial
importance of its corn for Rome and the need to deny its resources to
opponents. But Gallus was the man on the spot, and Upper Egypt, the
old traditional part of the Double Kingdom, recalcitrant to the Ptole-
mies and wooed by Cleopatra, had to be integrated militarily with the
rest. Meanwhile, the royal treasure-house was seized, which meant the
end of shortage of funds and enabled promised payments to be made for
the land bought for discharged veterans.

At Rome, tight control was exercised on behalf of his absent chief by
another member of the triumphant junta, also an egues, Gaius Maecenas.
He scotched an alleged plot by Lepidus, the son of the deposed triumvir,
to assassinate Caesar — an unconvincing story indeed, given that Caesar
was across the seas. Anyone looking for what was usurpatory and
unconstitutional about the new rulers who had vaulted into power need
look no further, for there is no sign that Maecenas had any formal
authority at all, and there were perfectly valid consuls in office: ‘non mos,
non ius’, yet.23 And though certain new constitutional powers were
voted to the absent Caesar, the ‘Vote of Athena’ or power of pardon,”4
the auxilii latio or power, like a tribune , to come to the aid of citizens in
the city of Rome,?5 and the power to ‘judge when called upon’*s (which
scholars seize upon in the search for a constitutional basis for the
emperor as judge), they are best seen either as marks of honour, simply —
for 30 B.c., with Caesar away from Rome, was hardly a time for
constitution-making — or else as giving him some judicial standing in the
East, in relation to former partisans of Antony, or of himself.’ (Cf. ch. 1.
Endnote 2.)

21 Boucher 1966 (c 37). 22 Dio 11.17.1; Tac. Ann. 1.59.3. 23 Tac. Aan. 111.28.1.

24 Jones 1960 (A 47) 95.

2 Dio L1.19.6 says all powers of a tribune, for life. That may have been offered; Caesar accepted
(only) ‘most’ of what was offered, 1.20.4. 2% éxxdnrov Sixdlev.

77 His partisans in the cities may have been calling for support.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

30-17 B.C. 75

For Caesar showed no sign of hurry to reach the hub of things. He
entered upon his fifth consulship of 29 B.c., as he had done his fourth the
year before, in absence from Rome, still in the East, where there was
need for diplomatic activity and reflection (no doubt) on policy, and
where a major decision was forced on him about cult of himself as the
new liberator, peace-bringer and benefactor.28 Caesar was bombarded
with offers of official cult, in line with what was customarily offered in the
hellenistic world. Dio tells us what he decided: for the Roman citizens in
the East, temples of Rome-plus-the-divine-Iulius at Ephesus and Nicaea
were to be the prescribed limit of official cult; for the non-Romans,
temples of Rome-plus-himself at Pergamum and Nicomedia.”° That, Dio
says, was the precedent for the subsequent general pattern; like the
prefecture of Egypt, and much else, what came to be settled policy
sprang from a quick decision made in a particular context.

The Senate, at its first meeting of 29 B.c., excogitated further honours
for the still absent victor: the right to use Imperator as his permanent
first name,» formal approval of his eastern diplomatic arrangements,
and, on 11 January, the closing of the gates of Janus in sign that Rome
was at total peace. (We can all notice, with Dio,3! that campaigns were
going on in Spain, Gaul and Africa, but the Romans meant peace as far as
they were concerned, and the ‘business-as-usual’ foreign triumphs by
which the aspiring leaders of the Republic brought themselves to
prominence, and which had gone on, significantly, all through the
triumviral period, were still going on.)

Caesar came leisurely home. In August he was back on Italian soil
(Virgil and Maecenas read the Georgics to him at Atella);>2 and on 13, 14
and 15 August he celebrated the only three triumphs he was ever to
celebrate: for his Dalmatian campaigns of 35—33 B.C., for Actium, and
for Egypt. His sister’s son Marcus Claudius Marcellus, and his stepson,
Tiberius Claudius Nero, coeval, born in 42 B.c., rode with the triumviral
carriage. There were gladiatorial and beast shows, a distribution of 400
sesterces per person to everybody ‘from the booty’, and a present to
discharged soldiers of 1,000 sesterces per head. On 18 August came
another ceremony: the dedication, on their completion, of two struc-
tures in the Forum Romanum proclaiming the glory of the gens Iulia,
the temple of divus Iulius at the southern end and the new senate-house,
the Curia Iulia, at the northern. The new Curia housed the statue of
Victory from Tarentum and the statue of ‘Venus rising’ by Apelles,
purchased by Caesar expressly; and outside the new temple were placed

% Habicht 1973 (F 54) $364. 29 Dio 11.20.6-9.

30 So de facto on coins already in the triumviral period. 31 Dio L1.20.5.

32 Donatus, Life of Virgil, from Suetonius’ Lives of the Poets (ed. Rostagni 1956 (B 153) 89).
33. Transformation of the Forum Romanum, Simon 1986 (F $77) 84-91.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

76 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

the rostra captured at Actium, to face the rostra at the other end of the
Forum (in their new Caesarian location). Noting these details is not to
descend into triviality,; they are the first of many examples to come of
political statements made through visual monuments.

Caesar and the chief among all his collaborators, Agrippa, were
granted censoria potestas, the authority possessed by censors, with which,
in 28, being both also the consules ordinarii of the year, they carried out the
first solemn lustration of the Roman people since 7o 8.c. They also
carried out a revision of the senate-list, /ectio senatus, which obliged
numerous senators to resign. It was the first of several purges of the
curial order, but one should be aware of incautious inferences from the
story that Caesar and Agrippa wore breastplates under their togas at that
/ectio. Of course, assassination was always a possibility, but the idea that
the purge in 28 B.c. was for the rooting out of irredentist Antonians is
simplistic, because such enemies were hardly to be scotched merely by
excluding them from the Curia. The Senate had, notoriously, been
grossly enlarged by the introduction of people whom the rest of that
body regarded as socially unworthy, and in the restoration of the status
quo ante which — as will be seen — was afoot, a return to a normalized
Senate was in the interest of the senatorial order itself. Furthermore, if
Caesar was going to set up a committee chosen by lot from the senators
to play some role in the preparation of public business,» it would need
first to shed its unsuitables. Dio mentions here (it is the first of many new
regulations governing senatorial affairs) a new rule that senators might
only leave Italy-Sicily with Caesar’s permission: hitherto the Senate itself
had been the licensing authority.35

It was in 28 B.C. that some of the slowly maturing plans began to take
shape. There faces us in the end that unavoidable topic, the constitution
of the Principate: it will be dealt with in chapter 3, but in the present
chronological account what happened can best be described as ‘business
as usual after alterations’, which was what all Rome wanted and
expected. ‘In my sixth and my seventh consulship, after I had ex-
tinguished the fires of civil war, in accordance with the wishes of all
[Greek version: ‘of my fellow citizens’] having taken control of all
things, I transferred the res publica [Greek version: not politeia but kyrieia,
‘supreme authority’] from my power into the arbitrament of the Roman
Senate and people.’> It can be noted at once that there was no such thing
as ‘the constitutional settlement of 27 8.c.’: ‘In my sixth (28) and my
seventh (27) consulship ...’, says Augustus.3? The process was con-
ceived of as a steady return to normality after years of abnormality. In 28

¥* Crook 1955 (D ro) 11. 35 Dio Lir.42.6; Mommsen 1888 (a 65) III 912-13.
% RG 34.1. 3% And cf. Tac. Aan. 111.28, sexto demum consulatu.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

30-17 B.C. 77

Caesar shared the consular fasces, month by month, with his colleague, in
the traditional manner (after all, he was now in Rome and so able to do
so), and he announced that the rulings of the triumvirs —including his
own, and presumably insofar as not already validated — would be
abolished as from the end of the year.38 What was occurring was what
Antony and Caesar, as triumvirs, had promised would occur. They had
envisaged it for their intended joint consulate of 31 B.c.:39 it had been
regrettably delayed by civil war, so Caesar implied, but now here it was;
and nobody at Rome can have expected that the ‘dynasts’ would reserve
to themselves zo special place in the restored order. The difference was
that there was now only one ‘dynast’ left, which was, needless to say, no
small difference.

But first, the year 28 had other excitements for the Roman public. To
begin with, no less than three ‘business-as-usual’ proconsular triumphs,
in May, July and August; then in September the first celebration of
‘Actian Games’ in Rome; and in October the completion of the white
marble temple of Apollo on the Palatine.*° Potent symbolism lay in that:
Actian Apollo to be the presiding genius of a new age, a synthesis of
Greece and Rome, of arms and arts, his shining temple standing
prominent, housing famous original statues and flanked by libraries, and
connecting with — so as to be virtually a part of — the house of Caesar. The
ever-recurring paradox of all this story comes out in those symbols: the
effort of Caesar, on one plane, to restore the ‘Scipionic’ Rome of past
glories, matched, on another plane, by the rapid growth, also by his
efforts, of new concepts and structures, of a ‘parallel language’.*! The
paradox is yet more apparent if the view of some modern writers be
accepted that Caesar’s huge Mausoleum beside the Tiber was already
finished by 28 B.c. and was a great symbol; but that may not be right,‘
and there is disagreement about what it is supposed to have symbolized.
Certainly, the Mausoleum was not redolent of modest aspirations, but
the late-republican Romans were competitive about tombs, and it was
perhaps just an ace of trumps in that competition.

Caesar was absent from his ‘Actian Games’: he was ill. Scepticism is
common amongst historians about the illnesses that punctuated the first
forty years of Caesar’s life: they were, it is supposed, psychological
reactions to tense situations, or even fraudulent and calculated. The
scepticism is fuelled by the fact that after 23 B.c. he lived toa great age in

8 Dio it.2.5. Grenade equates that announcement with the edict quoted by Suetonius, Awg.
28.2. Unconvincing. % App. BCiv. v.73.313.

# Propertius 11.31; Simon 1986 (F 577) 19-25; Zanker 1987 (F 632) 52~73 and 242-5.

“1 Concept borrowed from C. Nicolet 1976 (a 66) ch. 9, ‘les langages paralléles’.

42 Reliance is placed on Suet. Axg. 100.4; but it was recens when Virgil wrote Aen. v1.873 and still
unfinished when Marcellus was placed in it. 43 For the competition see Zanker 1987 (F 632) 27.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

78 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

essentially sound health,* by the lack of success of medical historians in
diagnosing, from the vague evidence, what, if anything, was seriously
the matter with him, and by the fact that he is known to have staged one
crisis, when Tiberius threatened retirement — and Tiberius was unde-
terred. Nevertheless, doubt is hypersceptical. Illness and early death
stalked the corridors of power in antiquity.*5 Iulius Caesar was epileptic;
Pompey was ill every year,” and very gravely ill at Naples in 50 B.c.; as
for our Caesar, he nearly died in his teens, and in 42 he was ill at
Dyrrhachium and at Philippi, and there were rumours of his death. In 33
he was ill in Dalmatia. His illness in 28 went on after the Games all
through the winter, for he was still not recovered in May the following
year. In 26 illness overtook him at Tarraco after the first Spanish
campaign, and may have been continuous through 25 and 24; for he was
ill at Rome in June 24, and very likely continued so right down to his
resignation of the consulship in July 23: then, notoriously, he was
thought to be at death’s door again. And, surely, he thought himself so:
hence the building of the Mausoleum, and the autobiography, after-
wards abandoned, and the early versions of the Res Gestae. Caesar’s
precarious condition, and his own belief in it, must be borne in mind
when we think of ‘constitutional settlements’: it really was possible that
the whole story would end abruptly, and he must hasten to leave
something stable behind.

At the beginning of 27 B.c., all special powers being abolished, Caesar
and Agrippa were joint consuls once again. On the Ides of January, in a
careful consular speech in the Curia, Caesar handed the whole Roman
state back into the hands of the Senate and people, for them to decide the
nature of its future government: that was the gesture of fulfilment of the
promise. It does not seem likely that the Senate’s response was other than
carefully prepared and stage-managed:* it was to grant to Caesar what
the Senate had traditional authority to grant, a provincia. But that
provincia, ‘Caesar’s province’, gave him nevertheless an overwhelming
role in the new order, because of its size: Spain, Gaul and Syria (plus,
indeed, Egypt, which, having not existed as a province at all until 30 B.c.,
may not have been thought of as any of the Senate’s business to grant),
on a ten-year maximum tenure. Caesar made no gesture to resign the
consulship, which lay with the people to grant; and if he chose to
continue to offer himself annually for election to it, no doubt he would be
regularly elected: he would hold his vast provincia either as consul, or, if
he ever dropped the consulship, as proconsul. No change at all needed to
be made in the traditional arrangements for the rest of the provinces of
the Roman world. Strabo, indeed, states — implying that it was at this

“ Though he remained hypochondriacally fussy about himself all his life, and often had throat
infections. 45 Syme 1986 (A 95) 20-5. 46 Cic. Aft. viml.2.3. 47 Contra, Dio LUL.1t.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

30-17 B.C. 79

time — that Caesar received ‘headship of the hegemony’ and was made
arbiter of peace and war for life, but reasons for limiting the significance
of that claim will be given in chapter 3 below.

The formal authority Caesar thus took for himself was vast, indeed,
and in its totality un-republican; nevertheless, it was a way of expressing
his overwhelming predominance in encouragingly familiar concepts —
sovereignty vested in Senate and people, and no political structure
incompatible with mos maiorum. And not a colossal confidence trick, for
who, amongst those who mattered, could have been taken in? Rather — if
Caesar turned out to have made the right political guess - what most
people badly wanted to believe; and, furthermore, experimental and
with a fixed term. And finally, if he died, the traditional res publica would
be standing in place, inviolate.

But at once comes the counterpoint and the paradox. For on 16
January Caesar was heaped with new honours proposed by his adher-
ents, above all with the name ‘Augustus’; and that was a fantastic
novelty, the impact of which is blunted for us by two millennia of calling
him by that name. No human person had been called it before, and its
symbolic range was very large. The sources preserve a tale that Caesar, or
some of his advisers, or both, had first thought of ‘Romulus’.49 Some
scholars doubt, others think that ‘Augustus’ was a second-best imposed
by the strength of opposition; but it came to the same thing, for they all
knew their Ennius: ‘... since famous Rome was founded with august
augury’. There were other insignia: the ‘civic crown’ of oak-leaves ‘in
honour of the salvation of the citizens’; the shield proclaiming Augustus’
special qualities, virtus, clementia, iustitia and pietas erga deos patriamque®
(expressing, of course, what was wanted of the ruler); the laurels placed on
either side of his house doorway.°! As children of a different culture we
might be impatient with those insignia, as politically trivial; but in a
society in which, to be a great man, you had to be acknowledged and
proclaimed as such, the names and crowns and dedications had power,
carrying symbolic messages both ways, of what was granted and what
was expected.

In Sextilis (or August) Augustus, in poor health again, went off, first
to Gaul and then to Spain. In fact, for fifteen years he kept up virtually a
regime of three-year trips to the provinces alternating with two-year
stays in Rome,°? and Suetonius remarks that Augustus saw personally
every Roman dominion except Africa and Sardinia.55 We need not

48 Scrab. xvit.3.25 (840C). 49 Suet. Agg. 7.2; Dio 1111.16.6—8.

53° Text of the copy from Arles, EJ? 22; picture, Earl 1968 (c 81) pl. 38.

5! Livy, Per. 134 gives also the change of the name of the month Sextilis to ‘Augustus’; but other
evidence suggests a much later date for that change.

5? Gardthausen 1891 (Cc 95) 1 806. 53 Suet. Aug. 47.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

80 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

attribute to him the passion for personal oversight — and for tourism —
that motivated Hadrian over a hundred years later. Escape from
opposition, at least in the sense of letting experiments simmer, may be
more relevant; the desire, also, to foster the impression of ‘business-as-
usual’: the governor goes to his province and Senate and people are
sovereign at Rome. Nevertheless, already and at once, the res publica was
stamped with that hallmark of a changed world, ‘ubi imperator, ibi
Roma’, ‘where the ruler is, there is Rome’. There was only one ruler
now, and the world must make its way to where he was.

‘Business-as-usual’ included a triumph, in September, for Marcus
Valerius Messalla Corvinus (the patron of Tibullus and perhaps of Livy),
ex Gallia, but before that, in July, one for Marcus Licinius Crassus, ex
Thracia et Getis. Crassus (a grandson of Iulius Caesar’s triumviral
colleague), who had been a partisan of Sextus Pompeius and then of
Mark Antony, but, in spite of that, consul ordinarius in 30 B.C., requested
the further honour of dedicating spo/ia opima for having personally killed
an enemy chief. Augustus had it disallowed, on a probably trumped-up
ground: no one was to be allowed military honours greater than the
ruler himself could ever conceivably have — indeed, before long not even
triumphs would be permitted to any except members of the “divine
family’. But use of this incident to infer a ‘challenge to the usurping
authority’ by an unreconciled Antonian, and a ‘crisis of the new order’ is
altogether out of proportion. Crassus celebrated a full triumph, and the
fact that he ‘disappears from history’ afterwards does not warrant
sinister suspicions. What is more, the history of his campaigns, far from
being suppressed, must have been written up by somebody, for Dio has a
disproportionately long account of them.*>

Another disappearance at about this time, however, might be
regarded as more of a tragedy: the suicide, in 26,56 of the poet, soldier,
and part-architect of Augustus’ victory, Gaius Cornelius Gallus, first
prefect of Egypt. Recent new — or newly evaluated — evidence*” has led to
revisions of the older story, that it was because he got above himself for
his undoubtedly successful campaigns to unify Egypt that he forfeited
the amicitia of Augustus. But whatever the reason, he did forfeit it, and
the protection it afforded, and laid himself open to a senatorial declara-
tion that he was liable to prosecution. Suetonius states that Augustus
was distressed by Gallus’ suicide and had not desired it;58 so modern
interpreters have urged that Gallus fell, not to the malice of his old chief,
but to that of the ‘opposition’, to whom the consignment of Egypt to an

5 Livy, tv.20.5 (who plainly (32.4) did not believe Augustus’ case).

55 Dio L1.23.2-27; and observe Livy Per. 134-5.

56 Dio Litt.23.4—7. Syme 1986 (a 95), 32, following Jerome, argues for 27.

57 Hartmann 1965 (B 241); Volkmann 196; (8 295); Boucher 1966 (c 37); Daly and Reiter 1979 (c
74); Hermes 1977 (B 82). 58 Suet. Aug. 66.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

30-17 B.C. 81

eques had been an outrage and who seized upon some Achilles’ heel of
Gallus to destroy him. There is a puzzle of evidence here, whose pieces
do not all fit; but it may be that we can legitimately see the Senate
emboldening itself to declare — now that the favourite had fallen from
grace — that a prefect of Egypt was not exempt from prosecutions to
which other governors were liable. And perhaps it is not too fanciful to
guess that the fall from grace was because Gallus had had further career
pretensions, such as entry into the Senate with high standing. At any
rate, insofar as there was a display of opposition in the incident it quite
failed to unnerve Augustus, who continued to entrust Egypt to equites
(and did not let them rise further).

The story here being challenged, that of attacks upon the usurping
junta by an increasingly powerful and bold opposition, leading’ to
disintegration of the ‘Party’ and forcing upon the ruler a rethinking of
his entire position that bore fruit in 23 B.c., is held to embrace even
Augustus’ Spanish war — its purpose political propaganda and its goal
not achieved.°® Northern Spain had been a useful triumph-hunting
ground for years, down to 26 B.c., but it seems probable that it was now
to be definitively annexed for its precious metals. That proved a hard
task: Augustus had intended to lead a victorious campaign in person,
and he had Marcellus and Tiberius with him as military tribunes, but he
was ill at Tarraco and the war had to be carried forward — to no properly
conclusive end — by legates. The illness gives a better key to these years:
Augustus doubted his own long survival. Timor mortis, rather than fear
of the opposition, was what preoccupied him.

His consular colleagues in Rome in 27 and 26 were Marcus Agrippa
and Titus Statilius Taurus, reliable men. It can therefore hardly have
been out of a sense of insecurity that in 26, from Spain, he promoted
another experiment, the appointment of a prefect of the city, the
respected trivmphator Messalla Corvinus. The post had a remote
republican history: in the dim past a prefect had been appointed by the
consuls if both had to be absent on campaign, to see to the government
of the city, and Iulius Caesar had appointed several prefects simulta-
neously in his absence. The prefecture was destined to become a regular
post under the Principate, with responsibility for policing Rome, for
which the urban cohorts were at the prefect’s disposal; it came, in fact, to
be the crown of a senatorial career. But in 26 there was a sitting consul,
and Messalla, having accepted, gave up the post after six days.*! The
oddity is, if he thought it was a breach of wos maiorum, why he accepted in

59 Schmitthenner 1962 (c 305). See also ch. 1 above and ch. 4 below.

6 Syme 1986 (a 93), chs. 15 and 16, and, on the prefecture of the city, esp. 211-12.

61 ‘Claiming that he did not understand the job-description’, Tac. Aan, v1.11; ‘Embarrassed by
the job’, Sen. Apecol. 10; ‘Unconstitutional position’, Jerome, Chron. sub ann. 26.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

82 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

the first place. Scholars suggest that pressure from his peers caused him
to resign — another ‘victory for the opposition’ — or that he realized he
was being manipulated by the ruler into acquiescing in a sinister novelty.
It may be suggested, rather, that Augustus intended the post as an
addition to the ‘honours list’ and Messalla accepted it as such and then
learnt (from someone like Livy? We must remember that the Romans did
not know much about their ancient history) how historically anomalous
it was. There is no sign that he forfeited Augustus’ esteem by his
resignation, and the post was not, at that time, proceeded with. Statilius
Taurus, according to Tacitus, took it, and with success, but hardly
immediately, for he was consul; and it is by no means certain that
Augustus ever intended that prefecture as a permanent post.

Agrippa, in his chief’s absence, was engaged in the creation of a new
complex of public structures and leisure-spaces in the Campus Martius.
It was part of the stage-by-stage capture of the public spaces of Rome for
the symbolism of the new ruler, as well, of course, as the cultivation of
the plebs and the continuation of Agrippa’s own populist image,
inaugurated by his astonishing aedileship in 33 B.c.62 The new complex
comprised, particularly, the Saepta Iulia, the great covered hall for
voting (a project of Iulius Caesar), new baths with an attached park, and
a new temple, the Pantheon.®? Now the precedents for such a temple as
that were hellenistic and monarchical, and scholars detect a whiff of
opposition again, for we are told that Agrippa wished to call his
structure Augusteum and place in it a statue of Augustus, so implanting
direct cult of the ruler in Rome itself. Augustus declined, and if he was
not under pressure he was certainly, in the matter of cult, feeling every
step of the way; his absence will have helped to save embarrassment.

The creation of public spaces advertising the triumphant glory of
Rome was proceeding also in newly conquered lands — in, for example,
the major new cities of Colonia Augusta Praetoria (Aosta) and Colonia
Augusta Emerita (Mérida), both of them settlements of retired soldiers.
A second closing of the gates of Janus signalized the all-too-incomplete
victory in Spain.& Meanwhile, to Tarraco flocked the world’s embassies:
Parthians, Scyths, Indians, delegations from Greek cities. There could
be no doubt where policy was being made; and that was the reverse of the
coin, the disadvantage of absence, for not even a pretence could there be
made of senatorial involvement. Incidentally, Augustus’ wife, Livia
Drusilla, was always at his side, whether on tour or at home. But there
was no son of that marriage, a fact which remains a mystery.

62 Zanker 1987 (F 632) 144-8.
6 Not like the Hadrianic rotunda to be seen today, and facing in the opposite direction. Coarelli
1983 (F 116).

Dio dates the closing to 25 8.c., Li1.27.1; and that is certainly before Augustus got back to
Rome.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

30-17 B.C. 83

Hence the major preoccupation of the sick ruler at Tarraco was: what
happens if I die tomorrow? The answer arrived at, of immense signifi-
cance (and hardly what Livia Drusilla can have advised), was to marry
his two nearest blood relations to each other, his daughter Iulia, aged
fourteen, to his sister’s son, Marcellus, aged seventeen. In 24 B.c.
Marcellus was admitted to the Senate with the rank of one who had
already held the praetorship and with the promise of an early consulship,
and in 23, to enhance his popular image, he was made aedile and
Augustus contributed to make his aedilician games especially note-
worthy. We ought not to be puzzled at the paradox of a regime
carefully founded on the ostensible principle of election to offices, all of
whose successive rulers, including the high-minded Marcus Aurelius,
thought in exclusively dynastic terms about the succession. Paradox it is,
but not novel; on the contrary, rooted in the mentality of the governing
class of the Republic, whose young hopefuls had in each generation to
compete for the people’s votes to obtain office and so ‘stay in the club’,
but felt themselves entitled by descent to be the competitors, and whose
major families expected the highest honours for their sons. Augustus’
solution, then, was, mutatis mutandis, a traditional one: to see that his
natural dynastic successors were placed in the appropriate positions of
office. The one idiosyncrasy was his very strictly ‘genetic’ concept of the
succession: it was the blood of his family that was to prevail over all. It is
easy to perceive the difficulty, namely that he had to make, and be seen to
be responsible for, the choices that, in the Republic, the populus Romanus
had made. Tiberius, for example, the son of Livia Drusilla, coeval with
Marcellus: what of him? He must play second fiddle. In 24 he was elected
quaestor for 23 — a step behind Marcellus — and allowed to stand for
further offices five years ahead of normal. Or what of Agrippa, the main
architect of victory, guarantor of stability, and focus of plebeian
support? He had, at all events, no son. If mortality were to strike
Augustus now, he alone could conceivably carry on the regime as they
had planned it. Would he do so faithfully in the name of Marcellus and
Iulia? Well, he presided over the marriage ceremonies, which suggests
that he supported the solution — except that Augustus was never
sensitive to the feelings of those closest to him.

Augustus struggled home at the end of 25. He entered on his tenth
consulship on the road from Spain to Rome; and on that day, 1 January
24 B.C., the Senate took an oath to uphold his acta, and it was announced
that he would make a present to the plebs of 400 sesterces per person.
Whereupon the Senate, according to Dio, ‘released him from all
compulsion of the laws’, which meant, goes on Dio, that Augustus was

65 The vela, Prop. 11.18.13. Crinagoras, Poems x and x1, ed. Gow and Page 1968 (B 65).
Dio Lit.28.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

84 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

to be ‘master of himself and the laws and do what he liked and not do
what he did not like’. Now Dio remarks elsewhere’ that the emperor is
‘absolved from the laws’ —- which was proper constitutional doctrine by
his day. If that, plus ‘doing what he liked’, was proclaimed as the
prerogative of Augustus as from 1 January 24 B.C., it is that date, not 31
nor 29 nor 27 Nor 23 Nor 19g Nor 2 B.c., that would have to count as the
start of formal constitutional autocracy at Rome, for both the great
doctrines of the High Empire, ‘the emperor is dispensed from the laws’
and ‘what is pleasing to the emperor has the force of statute’, are inherent
in what Dio says. Scholars do not so count it, and they are right not to;
for even those who deduce from the /ex de imperio Vespasiani that the
second of those doctrines did apply already to Augustus® are usually
constrained by parity of reasoning to admit that that same /ex shows that
Augustus was not, in general, ‘dispensed from the laws’. Such
prerogatives could not have been granted by the Senate alone, and it is
best to treat the alleged grant just as a proposal, made in Augustus’
absence and in contemplation of his illness, that never got beyond the
Senate. Constitutional redefinition was on the way, but it was to take a
quite different turn.

The year 23 B.c., Augustus’ fortieth, was a year of crisis, because
Augustus almost died and Marcellus did die. Numerous historians at the
present time re-date two events placed by Dio in the year 22 B.c., the
‘trial of Marcus Primus’ and the ‘conspiracy of Caepio and Murena’.”°
They place them in 23, and claim that those events, coupled with the
assumed disgruntlement of Agrippa with the promotion of Marcellus,
were the culmination of the long tale of increasingly bold and successful
opposition, nearly brought the whole regime down to disaster, and
forced upon Augustus a constitutional retreat. The illness of Augustus is
seen as a feint, a sharp incentive to the ‘Party’ to pull itself together. That
transposition (with all the inferences that it carries with it) is, on
methodological grounds, not adopted in what follows.”

Early in the year 23, Augustus did not expect to survive. There were,
no doubt, people who rejoiced, and to whom the ruler’s unexpected and
rapid recovery was deeply disappointing. But at the crisis he handed state
papers to his fellow-consul and his private signet to Agrippa. That was a
scrupulously correct procedure. And he had not given the dynastic
signal of adoption to Marcellus, not even in his will — as he was anxious
to assure people.’ Upon recovery, in fact, he hastened to redefine
powers, and, first of all, those of Agrippa. A law was passed conferring

$7 Dio Lin.18.1. $8 See ch. 3 below, pp. 118-20.

® And historians, from Dio onwards, are wrong if they think the two doctrines ‘come close to
the same thing’. 7 Dio tiv.3.

1 Badian 1982 (c 14) argues cogently against it. 7 Dio wi1.31.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

30-17 B.C. 85

upon Agrippa an imperium proconsulare, probably with a term of five
years:73 not for action, but for eminence next to Augustus (and certainly
not maius, for not even Augustus had that yet). Agrippa, with his new
imperium, sailed off promptly to the East, to no particular activity,
settling his headquarters at Lesbos and governing Syria through his own
legates. Already in antiquity historians thought up explanations of this
odd conduct: Agrippa had taken himself off, or been sent off by the very
grant of proconsular imperium, in rage and humiliation, or in loyal co-
operation, in order not to be in the path of the rising star, Marcellus.
‘Crisis’ historians, nowadays, prefer to see him sent to ‘hold the East’
because of the strength of opposition to the regime. Better than any of
those explanations is to see in Agrippa’s departure an experiment with
the concept of double-harness at the top, one ruler in the West and one in
the East. Augustus was, presumably, convalescent, and no one could
know that he was destined never to be seriously ill again. Moreover,
there was plague at Rome.

In any case, the new formula for Agrippa was only the first stage in a
bigger reformulation, the ‘constitutional settlement’ of 23 B.c. On 1 July
Augustus laid down his eleventh consulship, and must then have made it
plain that in subsequent years he would not normally be a candidate for
the office; for alternative formulae were adopted for giving him the
various powers that he was relinquishing by giving up the consulship.
But let us here be clear about the difference between powers and power.
Augustus was not engaged in taking or declining or modifying the latter:
factual power was not in question; he had that, totally, as long as he
satisfied the general interest of governing class, plebs and armies. What
was being taken or declined or modified was the expression of that
power, which would settle expected boundaries of its use, of the
behaviour of the ruler, and the scope to be allowed for a modus vivendi
under his power. Not, then, retreats and compromises in a struggle over
power, but in order to get the most acceptable modus vivendi. And in 23 the
prime need was to restore to full availability the highest social prize of
the aristocracy, the consulship,” which had been monopolized for years,
as to one place, by Augustus, and twice also, as to the other, by
Agrippa.’> “‘Business-as-usual’ was what the aristocracy wanted as the
price for their co-operation. Suetonius records, undated, a proposal by
Augustus for there to be three consuls in any year when he was one,
which was turned down:’6 the proposal tends to be associated with 19
B.C., but it might belong here in 23 — tried out, perhaps, on the senatorial

73 Roddaz 1984 (c 200) 339—51 has a full discussion; it is not in Dio. Essential now is EJ? 366, the
Greek fragment of Augustus’ funeral oration for Agrippa, with the additional fragment published
by Gronewald 1983 (B 370) 61-2. 7 Dio viit.32.3.

7 Agrippa never took another after 23. 7% Suet. Aug. 37.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

86 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

steering committee and greeted with too much dismay. The alternative
was for the ruler to relinquish the highest office.

Instead (or at least at the same time) Augustus received the grant,
annually renewable but for life, of the official powers possessed by
tribunes of the plebs, ¢ribunicia potestas. We can argue that he needed the
tribunician power so as, constitutionally, to be able to summon the
Senate and to introduce legislation, and Augustus certainly so employed
it. Some historians, regarding it as the principal cloak for autocracy,
designate it as ‘vague’ and ‘all-embracing’: that is not right, for, unlike
imperium, which was indeed vague, tribunicia potestas was a bundle of
specifically defined powers.That is corroborated by the fact that an
addition had to be made:” the Senate granted Augustus the right to
make a formal motion at any session (a right that had not been part of the
power of tribunes in the Republic). Tacitus looked in a different
direction for the prime significance of the tribunician power: ‘Augustus
invented it as the title of highest pre-eminence, in order not to assume the
name of king or dictator, and yet to have an appellation that would make
him stand above all other imperia’.”8 Tacitus thus saw it as a distinction
rather than a power, and the same inference can be drawn from two other
considerations, first that it came to be used as the chronological marker
of the reign,’? and, second, that it came to be the ultimate honour
conferred on those chosen to be partners in the ruler’s responsibilities —
the sign of a ‘colleague in rule’, collega imperii. Also, of course, in an age
attuned to symbols, tribunician power implied a relationship of protec-
torate over the common people; though how far that impressed them is
doubtful, and what they were hoping for was, as we shall see, something
much more full-blooded.

The imperium of Augustus was redefined: it became imperium mains,
which gave him prevailing authority over any other provincial governor
in any case of conflict. It was, however, only proconsular imperium,
giving him no authority in the home sphere such as he had possessed as
consul (though, simply for practical convenience, he was allowed to
have it ‘once for all’ in the sense of not having to drop it every time he
entered the sacred pomerium of Rome and resume it every time he
departed). Some interpret the redefinition as compensating Augustus
for the total maius imperium over the Roman world traditionally pos-
sessed by consuls; but not all historians are agreed as to the reality, in
practice, of the consular maius imperium, and, once again, not the least
importance of the new device was to function as a distinction, keeping
Augustus’ imperium one stage higher than the new imperium of Agrippa.

7 Dio x111.32.5; Talbert 1984 (D 77) 165.

8 Tac. Aan. 111.56.2. ‘Title of highest pre-eminence’ must be an echo of an official description;
the Greek for it can be seen in the oration for Agrippa, EJ? 366, lines 11-12.

7% Though not immediately: Lacey 1979 (c 147). 9 Dio Lit.32.5.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

30-17 B.C. 87

‘Constitutional settlement’ is, then, too schematic a description of the
changes of 23 B.c.; but it is only fair to add that the two elements,
imperium proconsulare maius and tribunicia potestas, proved a very stable
formula for the executive authority of Roman emperors for a long time
to come.

So much for paper arrangements; in the world beyond the drafting-
board nature and chance play their part: disease and death, fire, flood and
famine affect the stability of regimes. The years 23 and 22 B.c. were
plague years all over Italy. Marcellus died (we do not know whether of
plague), and there was no child of his marriage; that was a blow to
Augustus’ first attempt to create a succession, though the less urgent in
that the ruler himself seemed out of danger. More urgent was the
condition of the plebs of Rome, whose goodwill Agrippa had fostered.
Along with its huge growth in numbers the plebs, overwhelmingly of
freedman status, had acquired some political force.*! It is exaggerated to
suppose that Augustus was either dependent on it or could ever have
based power mainly upon it, but it had huge ‘nuisance-value’ and had to
be managed and prevented from developing popular leaders. Along
with plague went grave food shortage,®2 and the commons were angry
and disillusioned, calling upon the ruler to undo the careful paperwork
and take official powers more plenary than he had ever yet had.

The year 22 B.C. was, in fact, fraught with ills. The statutory court for
treason had to be convened for more than one case.83 The trial of Marcus
Primus, proconsul of Macedonia, for making war on the Odrysae of
Thrace unprovoked and without authority, his claim to have done so at
the behest of ‘Augustus or Marcellus’, the appearance of Augustus at the
tribunal to deny any such instruction, the question by defence counsel
what standing he had to intervene, and his reply that his justification was
‘the public interest’: all that is a well-known story. The matter was, no
doubt, serious, especially as the resulting conviction of Primus was not
unanimous; but it may have been accorded a significance beyond its
deserts by being transposed to 23 B.c. It belongs, rather, to the category
of ‘famous repartees’, Augustus’ reply being reminiscent of that of
Pericles, that moneys had been spent ‘for a necessary purpose’.85

But there was also a conspiracy by two persons, presumably to
attempt what nature had failed to achieve.® One was a wholly unknown
Fannius Caepio,®’ the other a certain Murena (so Dio calls him),®
connected with a group close to the ruler: he was the brother, or half-
brother, of Maecenas’ wife, Terentia®9 and of Augustus’ other equestrian

81 See CAH 1x,? ch. 17. 8 Nore the /rumentatio recorded in RG 15.1.

8 Its composition was, presumably, at least half non-senatorial. * Dio Liv.3.1-3.

8 Plut. Per. 23.1. % Dio Liv.3.4—8; Vell. Pat. 11.91.2. 5 Syme 1986 (A 95) 40, 0.47.

8% Referred to in different sources as Licinius Murena and Varro Murena; doubtless he was alsoa
Terentius, but he was not the mystery man in the consular Fasti for 23. Syme 1986 (a 95) 387-9.

® With whom Augustus was supposed to be having 2 liaison.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

88 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

friend, Gaius Proculeius, and he was also the very defence counsel who
had sought to embarrass Augustus at the trial of Marcus Primus. There is
no reason to think that the charge was merely trumped up by Augus-
tus.% There was a formal trial for treason,®! and a conviction, but, again,
short of unanimous. The sinister part of the tale is that the convicted men
were not permitted to slip away into exile in the traditional way but
apprehended and put to death.%2 Perhaps they failed to depart instantly
enough. Maecenas is said by Suetonius to have given the nod to his wife
to warn her brother to flee,°3 and commonly supposed to have lost his
confidential standing with Augustus from that moment (though it is not
clear that he did lose it abruptly, and Terentia hardly needed her husband
as a go-between for information). Augustus celebrated his delivery from
the plot (presumably to knife him) as a victory, and was furious at the
lack of unanimity of the condemnation.

Disease and hunger led to demonstrations in Rome. Augustus had set
out for eastern parts (we shall see why), but the disorders were too great
to ignore, and Agrippa was away, so he hurried back. He was offered the
dictatorship,™ by the Senate under heavy pressure from the city plebs,
which was thinking of Iulius Caesar; he was offered the powers of a
censor for life; he was offered a consulship that would be ‘annual yet
perpetual’, like his tribunician power. He made, like Iulius Caesar at the
Lupercalia, a histrionic scene of public refusal.95 He cannot have been
scheming to get those offices, any one of which amounted to formal
constitutional supremacy, though those who believe that the arrange-
ments of 23 B.c. were a retreat imposed by opposition also believe that
Augustus engineered the public outcry to give him the excuse to recover
constitutional ground. If scheming is in question it would be more
plausible to suppose that he schemed for a chance to refuse them. Or
were opponents trying to manoeuvre him into a false step that would
justify tyrannicide? Perhapsall was straightforward on both sides, for the
context was that of demands that somebody, somehow, should produce
bread, and Augustus did accept cura annonae, charge of the corn supply,
and it is altogether too subtle to think that that authority was a disguise
for total supremacy and that the shortage itself was engineered for that.
Bread appeared quickly enough,® and for the future a not very radical
experiment was embarked on to improve the distribution of the free
ration: a new annual’ committee of senior senators, praefecti frumenti dandi.

In September 22 B.c. Augustus got away from Rome, and was away

% The story at Suet. Ag. 56.4 implies that it had shaken him badly.

%\ Perhaps separate trials: young Tiberius was prosecutor of Caepio.

9% Dio’s ‘...on the grounds that they intended to flee’ is probably just a mistake natural to one of
his century. %3 Suet. Ang. 66.3.

% Twice, he says in the Res Gestae. % Dio tiv.1.4-5; Suet. Aag. 52.

% Augustus probably just leant heavily on hoarders: cf. Dig. 48.12.2 on the Lex Iulia de annona.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

30-17 B.C. 89

three whole years. Agrippa was in the eastern lands, no prefect of the city
was appointed, and the urban plebs was not satisfied: the consuls had a
rebellious populace on their hands. The people in comitia refused to elect
more than one consul for 21 B.c.; equally, Augustus, writing from
Samos, refused to take the vacant place. Only at the beginning of 21 did
the people obediently elect a second consul.

What had taken the ruler to the East was a major policy issue, and he,
not Agrippa, must be the one to achieve a hoped-for diplomatic coup. So
Agrippa was available to change places with him, to return to Rome,
and, momentously, to marry the widow Iulia. (Tiberius, the stepson, was
not offered that hand: he was intended for a career of great public service,
indeed, but not to reach the summit of all things.) If Agrippa’s presence,
briefly, in Rome was also supposed to calm plebeian agitation and
prevent the now open consulship from falling into wrong hands, his
success was limited, for in 20 B.c. the comitia again declined to elect more
than one consul, Gaius Sentius Saturninus, who, in early 19 B.c., found
himself facing, alone, the rise of a ‘people’s champion’, a certain Marcus
Egnatius Rufus.

The garbled tale of Egnatius Rufus’ may be not unfairly boiled down
to this: he was a senator who, as aedile, had won the favour of the Roman
plebs by organizing a fire service; that had taken him straight to the
praetorship, emboldened by which he stood in 19 B.c. for the consul-
ship.®8 That conduct counts, in our sources, as one of the ‘canonical’ list
of conspiracies against Augustus; it is puzzling why. For Augustus was
in the East (and Agrippa was, in a single year’s campaign, finally
conquering the Cantabrians in Spain), and the problem, whatever it was,
was dealt with firmly and successfully by the consul and the Senate. The
consul refused Egnatius’ candidature, and when a popular uprising
occurred it was suppressed, in accordance with a senatus consultum
ultimum, and the aspiring popular leader executed. The naive guess is
probably right, that the plebs had found a new Clodius, and the fact was
dangerous — but to the whole elite, not just to the ruler, so they closed
ranks. If Augustus was hoping, as some authors think, that the political
agitations of the plebs would lead to an enlargement of his own powers,
he would not want his position to seem to be dependent on a
demagogue; and if he just feared the plebs would be seduced away from
him and Agrippa, he had a yet more obvious motive for wanting
Egnatius removed. In any event, neither he nor Agrippa saw any need to
rush home.!0

9% The sources are muddled, not least chronologically: Dio L111.24.4—6 (under 26 5.c.); Vell. Pat.
11.91.3—4, with the notes of Woodman 1983 (B 203).

% ‘The vacant one of 19? It sounds, rather, as if the consul was presiding over ordinary elections,
which would have been those for 18. ® Suet. Aag. 19.1.

100 Agrippa’s Aqua Virgo was opened ong June, but he can hardly have completed the clinching
Spanish campaign quickly enough to be present.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

90 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

Augustus’ eastern sojourn claimed striking achievements. The back-
ground of affairs in the kingdoms of Parthia and Armenia is described in
chapter 4 below.!° The first result of Augustus’ intervention in 20 B.c.
was a diplomatic agreement with the government of Parthia, the only
substantial territorial power on Rome’s horizon. It was no doubt
welcome to both sides, and established a treaty relationship as between
equal powers and an official frontier. Moreover, legionary standards
captured from Marcus Crassus and from Mark Antony were handed
back to the Romans. Augustus succeeded brilliantly in exploiting the
fact, for home consumption, as a victory of arms, which it was not. An
opportunity also offered itself for Tiberius Claudius Nero, the stepson,
to gain diplomatic or military credit by installing a Roman supporter on
the throne of Armenia — which proved easy, because the monarch of the
moment had been assassinated before Tiberius arrived. But it was the
‘return of the standards’ that became a corner-stone of the ideology of a
reinvigorated Rome resuming her historic right to ‘spare the conquered
and defeat the proud’.!02

Augustus made many other political dispositions in the eastern
provinces, for example depriving cities of their status as ‘free’ cities and
promoting others, quite irrespective (as Dio points out) of the nature of
provinces such as Asia and Bithynia, which were technically provinciae
populi Romani governed by proconsuls.!% It was done by the authority of
his imperium maius. Also, according to Dio,’ he sent the Senate a letter
stating a policy strangely like the instructions that Tacitus says he left
behind in a.p. 14: ‘to keep the empire within bounds’. That is surprising
at this juncture, in view of the huge expansion that was to come: perhaps
it was a justification for treaty relations with Parthia and the continued
use of ‘client kings’ in the East.

Augustus voyaged home via Athens, whither Virgil journeyed in his
honour (and died in his entourage at Brundisium on the way back: a
heavy year for Roman poetry, which saw the death of Tibullus also). The
magistrates and Senate proceeded to Campania to meet the returning
ruler, a gesture that became a precedent;!5 and he appointed, proprio
motu, a second consul for the empty place, thus both resolutely declining
to change course but also cutting a Gordian knot by pure auctoritas: it
was not, apparently, challenged.

An altar to Fortuna Redux, ‘Fortune the Bringer Home’, was erected
at the Porta Capena and a ceremony of reditus, return, was enacted, of
which much is made in the Res Gestae.1% A triumph, however, Augustus

tol Pp. 158-63.

102 Virg. Aen. v1.85 3. Cf. Prop. 1v.6.83, Horace’s Carmen Saeculare, and the breastplate of the
statue of Augustus from Prima Porta, Simon 1986 (F 577) 52-7. 103 Dio Liv.7.4-5.

14 Dio Liv.g.1. 105 First, actually, in 30 B.c., Dio L1.4.5.

10 RG 11; the Fasti Amiternini and Oppiani have it also, under 12 Oct.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

30-17 B.C. 9g!

refused, accepting instead ornamenta triumphalia, the insignia without the
ceremony.!° Triumphs were to be quite rare, partly because indepen-
dent proconsular commands, a prerequisite of a triumph, died out and
partly because triumphs competed, as public spectacle, with the ruler’s
own image-making: Agrippa led the abstinence. In March 19 B.c. Lucius
Cornelius Balbus held a full, formal triumph for campaigns in Africa,
and that was the last to be recorded in the Fasti Triumphales and the last
to be held by anyone outside the ‘divine family’: for others, ornamenta
triumphalia became the usual limit of honours. It may have been at that
time that the arch was built next to the temple of Divus Iulius which had
on its inner walls the pageant of Roman history represented by the Fasti
Capitolini and Fasti Triumphales;'!® the ideology of military success and
hegemony was the very breath of Rome: it was to be channelled in the
interest of the ruler.

Dio gives a list of further constitutional grants to Augustus in 19 B.Cc.:
an ‘overseership of morality’ (praefectura morum would have been the
Latin), a censorial authority, a grant that most scholars interpret as the
consular power for life, and the right to enact any laws he might wish,
presumably without submitting them to the comitia, and to call them /eges
Augustae.'09 Was that the successful outcome of a Machiavellian policy of
‘reculer pour mieux sauter’? Had the popular agitations given Augustus
the all-embracing formal authority he coveted, under an at last accep-
table formula? Though widely believed, that is probably not right; the
context will suggest an alternative view. In the Res Gestae, Augustus
strenuously denies receiving all-embracing formal authority: but what
he did proceed to in the years that followed was a programme of
legislation, particularly such as he hoped would restore traditional
standards of the Roman people. The intention so to legislate must have
been known in advance, through the deliberations of the senatorial sub-
committee. Praefectura morum, we may guess, was a suggestion mooted
for the formal authority on which Augustus should proceed, censorial
power another, the right to enact /eges Axugustae another; all politely
rejected, but somehow the offers have got into the record as accepted.!10
The ‘consular power’ is a more complex, and certainly a controversial,
question. Most scholars, nowadays,!!! are only too happy to believe that
Augustus accepted it for life in 19 B.c., because it serves to provide
formal justification for certain actions he took, for which they can see no
other. There is, however, no explicit statement but Dio’s and Dio,

107 Dio says he celebrated an ovation, but see Abaecherli Boyce 1942 (A 1).

108 For the date, and the argument that the Fasti were on a ‘Parthian arch’, see Coarelli 1985
(E19). 109 Dio rv.10. 5-6.

110 Rejection of magistracy of curator morum, RG 6.1 (Greek only); of censorial power, implicit in

RG8; only Dio mentions /eges Augustae,and Augustus’ reference to his laws at RG 8.5 gives no hint.
Suetonius was misled: Avg. 27.5. "1 Following Jones 1960 (4 47) 13-15.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

92 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

properly read, is saying something different: ‘... and the power of the
consuls he took for life, to the extent of using the twelve fasces always and
everywhere and sitting on a magisterial chair between the consuls at any
time’.!!2 In the Res Gestae Augustus informs the reader of revisions of the
Senate list carried out ‘by consular power’: he surely means ad hoc grants,
and so implies that he did not possess it permanently. What Dio is telling
us about is not a power but an honour; for some ‘social’ rule was bound
to be invented, now that Augustus no longer held, every year, one of the
two highest offices of the state, about where, on formal occasions, he
should be placed in relation to those two officers and what insignia he
should have: we remember how the idea of three consuls did not appeal
and was dropped.

In fact, those who like to see the first third of Augustus’ reign
punctuated by ‘constitutional settlements’ might better look to 18 than
to 19 B.c. (though what is to be seen in 18 gives no comfort to any belief
that he had acquired some kind of ‘total power’ in 19.) In 18 B.c.
Augustus’ provincia ran out: something certainly had to be done about
that, and it was, in fact, renewed for the modest term of five years.
Simultaneously, Agrippa’s proconsular imperium was renewed for the
same five years, and in addition he received the tribunician power for five
years.113 In that development there is constitutional novelty in plenty: an
original and experimental arrangement based on a collegiate conception
of the rulership. Agrippa and Iulia now had a son, and another baby was
due, so dynasty was once again assured. The past decade had been
uncomfortable for the ruler and his regime; now, with a good measure of
optimism and militarism, Rome was to resume her role of conqueror and
mistress of the world.

So the years 18 and 17 were marked by a programme of social reform,
public and private, including a second revision of the Senate list, and bya
great festival of Rome, to proclaim regeneration and traditional values,
the Judi saeculares of 17 B.C.

Details of Augustus’ social laws of this phase are treated in chapters 3
and 18 below.!!4 He did not accept the offer to promulgate statutes as /eges
Augustae, but proposed them to the people by virtue of his tribunician
power, so that they were /eges Iuliae. In general, they were concerned with
two themes, first the fairer and smoother running of the organs of state
and law, and, second, family and birth-rate — of the ordines, the upper
class, which was what Augustus thought mattered. Under the first
heading the major element was the pair of /eges Iuliae indiciorum publicorum

"2 Dio tiv. 10.5, exactly analogous to ‘.. . for life, to the extent of not having to relinquish. . .’ at
LiII. 32.5; see above p. 86.

"3° Dio tiv.12.4. Agrippa’s imperium was not made maixs until 13 B.c., Dio Liv.28.1 (and that is
the correct inference from the Jaxdatio, EJ? 366). 114 Pp. 732-3, 883-93.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

30-17 B.C. 93

et privatorum, virtually a code for the organization of the courts of justice
(and including, probably, a regulation de vi that reaffirmed the ancient
citizen right of provocatio). Others were a lex Iulia de ambitu and a lex Iulia
de collegiis.''5 The package proclaimed that the traditional system of
public life was to run as before, at a better level of efficiency. The /ectio
senatus of 18 B.c. was in the same vein. It was an attempt to reduce the
Senate to nearer its old pre-Sullan number of 300, though Augustus did
not succeed in getting it below double that figure. More important, a
senatorial census was laid down for the first time — a minimum property
rating for a man to enter or stay in the august body.!!6 Augustus wanted
an old-fashioned Senate, whose members were to continue to hold
virtually all major executive positions in the state, the legionary
commands and provincial governorships, as well as receiving new
commissions from time to time.

The second heading of the legislation of 18 and 17 B.c., the 4x Iulia de
adulteriis establishing a new criminal court for sexual offences that
included extra-marital intercourse of men with freeborn women as well
as adultery, and the /ex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus, which provided
bonuses for those with children and penalties for those not, is castigated
nowadays as having imported the freedom-denying arm of the law into
what had hitherto been matters of private morality and family concern.
That, indeed, it did, but the perspective is erroneous unless it be
observed that interference by the state in matters of private conduct was
no novelty, but part of the age-old tradition of the Republic, which had
comitial trials for staprum, sumptuary laws, the Oppian and Voconian
laws, and above all the surveillance of the censors, with their no/a for all
sorts of conduct disapproved of by society.!!7 No more than the Greeks
did the Romans believe that there was any sphere of private morality
separable from the interests of the community at large. Augustus was
taking over both the mantle of ancient Greek legislators and the Roman
censorial role that he had been offered, but not under the formal title.
That is not to say that all of the elite class found the laws to their taste,
although Augustus claims in the Res Gestae that the Senate was in favour
of his measures.!18

Augustus and Agrippa were in Rome. Iulia had borne a second son,
and the two little boys, Augustus’ grandsons, were now formally
adopted as his sons, taking the names Gaius and Lucius Caesar — which
served plain notice upon the stepsons, Tiberius Claudius Nero and his
brother Nero Claudius Drusus, as to what the future could not hold for

118. Whether we should add, on the basis of the Tabula Irnitana (Gonzalez 1986 (B 235) 150), a lex
Iulia municipalis standardizing the constitutions of the municipalities of Italy, is a matter of
continuing debate.

"6 Discrepancy in the sources: Suet. Aag. 41.1 gives 1,200,000, Dio Liv.17.3 gives 1,000,000
sesterces. "17 Underestimated by Dixon 1988 (F 26a) 71. 8 RG 6.2 (the Greek text).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

94 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

them, though it would be more than a decade before the boys could come
into their political inheritance.

The celebration of a new /ustrum — indeed, far more, a new saeculum of
Rome — came, in triumphal mood, on 31 May 17 B.c.,!!9 and Horace’s
official Ode for the occasion, the Carmen Saeculare, cannot be bettered as a
compendium of the ideology set before the Roman people. It is the
fashion of our age to undercut official triumphalism, and there is plenty
of reason in the present case. Many of the governing class exhibited
irreconcilable dissatisfaction with the attempt to regulate their conduct:
Augustus had been up against the plebs, but now he was up against its
betters. Dio (and it must come from his source) stresses the ##-popularity
of Augustus at this time, and even makes 18 B.c. the beginning of plots
against him and against Agrippa,!20 whose status was resented. So if, as
we are commonly taught, Augustus’ greatest skill was the political tact
whereby he experimented to fit his de facto supremacy into a framework
of what people wanted it to seem to be, he had not, in the decade down to
the /udi saeculares, reaped much fruit of that alleged skill — or so we might
think until we notice the consuls of 16 B.c.!2!

Ill. 16 B.C. — A.D. 14

The consuls of 16 B.c. were young nobles (and similarly in the years that
followed, so all was right in shat relationship, at least). That particular
pair were also related to Augustus. Publius Cornelius Scipio was the son
of his former wife Scribonia by an earlier marriage, and so half-brother
to Iulia, and Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was married to Augustus’
niece Antonia, one of the two women of that name, the daughters of
Octavia and Mark Antony, who carried the great enemy’s genes deep
into the heart of the ‘divine family’.!22 The ‘divine family’ was the most
distinctly Augustan innovation of all, his way of reconciling the high
aristocracy. It was powerful both as fact and as concept. Practically, it
secured a cadre of collaborators at the highest level; psychologically, it
was the exemplar of Augustus’ moral programme; and symbolically it
was the ‘parallel language’ of dynasty and court taking over from
elective republicanism. (As a matter of fact, for the second half of the
year 16, the plebeian Lucius Tarius Rufus took over from P. Scipio; and
that well illustrates the historian’s peril in pretending to interpret the
politics of the age, for we do not know why. Was it because Rufus could
not be denied an honour and had to be fitted in? Or was Scipio ill, or

9 Pighi 1965 (B 263) 107-30, plus 131~6, shown by Cavallaro 1979 (B 217) to belong to the

Augustan /udi. 520 Dio tiv.15.1. 121 Syme 1986 (4 95) 53-63.
'2 For all such persons see, now, Syme 1986 (a 95), via the index.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

16 B.C.—A.D. 14 95

incompetent, or dissident? Many stories could be told, and a ‘crisis of 16
B.C.’ invented; but it would all be idle conjecture.)

In any case, the main theme of Augustus’ second decade was different.
Towards the end of the year 16 Augustus and Agrippa left Rome, for
opposite ends of the empire, each for three years — according, as it were,
to pattern. Rome was left to the consuls, plus Titus Statilius Taurus as
‘prefect of the city and Italy’.!123 Agrippa’s role in the East was not
military: he exercised imperial policy in half the empire as collega imperii,
dealing, for example, with the affairs of the remote client kingdom of the
Crimea, !?4 and confirming the right of the Jews of the Diaspora to their
ancestral laws and customs.!25 More in need of interpretation is Augus-
tus’ purpose in the West. His departure was hastened by the flurry caused
by a legionary standard lost on the Rhine,!#6 for rebuffs to Roman
military prestige could not be allowed. According to Dio, some said he
left Rome in order to consort with Maecenas’ Terentia with less scandal,
others that it was to avoid general unpopularity. But maybe a main
theme was already emerging: imperial expansion in northern Europe, of
which the two efficient stepsons would be the principal agents. Augustus
was inexhaustible in experiments with the material at any time to hand:
three centuries later, under Diocletian and his successors, the Roman
empire would be ruled by two ‘Augusti’ and two ‘Caesares’, and the
experiment of Augustus’ second decade looks as if based on some such
idea — save for the awkward and ominous difference that the two
“‘Caesares’ due to be groomed for succession were a different pair of
brothers entirely from the ones who were to share the present burdens.

Certain things that were done can be seen as preparatory. The
generation of soldiers who had been recruited after Actium must now be
pensioned off, so a big phase of veteran settlement occurred in Gaul and
Spain; and it is no surprise that, connected with the discharges and new
recruitments, the term of service was now!27 officially established at a
minimum of sixteen years for legionaries and twelve for the praetorian
guard. Thus, out of the needs of the time, emerged the formal
establishment of the Roman army as a professional service (for ‘other
ranks’, not officers). And at roughly the same time Lugdunum seems to
have begun to function as a major government mint, coining gold and
silver; new money was going to be needed to pay legions campaigning in

13 Dio i1v.19.6: Dio’s Greek implies that title: it was probably a formal, even if not a standing,
office. 124 Dio Liv.24.4-6.

125 Rajak 1984 (E 1194) favours the authenticity of the texts cited by Josephus, but minimizes
their scope.

126 The ‘Lollian Disaster’, 16 B.c. (or 17, as argued by Syme, see 1986 (A 95) 402, 0.116).

127 Dio Lrv.25.5 puts it in 13 B.C.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

96 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

north and west. Gaul was subjected to a census, and detested both the tax
and the procurator.

The first big movement!?8 was the subjugation by the brothers,
Tiberius Nero and Nero Drusus, of Raetian and Vindelician Switzerland
(not without mass deportations) and the bloodless incorporation of the
kingdom of Noricum. Augustus took an imperatorial salutation; the
stepsons could have neither triumph nor ovation, for they were only
legati Augusti, but at least Horace accorded them proud celebration, as he
did also for the return of Augustus to Rome in 13 B.c.!2° And in relation
to that reditus a magnificent new way was invented to advertise the
‘divine family’: on 4 July 13 B.c., by decree of the Senate, there was
inaugurated a sacred precinct and altar of the ‘Augustan Peace’ in the
north part of the Campus Martius; it was not dedicated till 10 January 9
B.c. Its famous frieze is an imaginary depiction of a procession of the
‘divine family’ and the members of the great priesthoods to an inaugural
celebration; contemporaries will probably have been able to identify
every figure.!30 Both the frieze and the independent panels of the Ara
Pacis are eloquent with all the themes of Augustan ideology, not the least
striking emphasis being upon children, the ‘young hopefuls’, the key to
future glory.!3!

To the Ara Pacis we now have to add, as an element — perhaps the
major element — in a complex architectural ensemble, the enormous
public sundial and astronomical clock created, also, in the north part of
the Campus.!3? Its gnomon, 30 m high (with plinth), was one of the two
obelisks brought from ‘captured Egypt’;!33 the paved ground under the
feet of pedestrians was itself the sundial; and the equinoctial line on the
ground passed through the Ara Pacis and subtended a right angle to the
Mausoleum by the Tiber. There has been detected a whole wealth of
symbolism about the birth and conception of Augustus in relation to
renewal and peace, adding significance to one of the best-known
inscriptions of the period, the letter of the proconsul of Asia and decrees
of the Joint Council of the province inaugurating a new calendar for Asia
based on Augustus’ birthday, which is celebrated as ‘giving a new look

to the cosmos’.!34
Of course, both the rulers returned to Rome in 13 B.c., for their

123 A prelude consisted of campaigns by Publius Silius in the Alpine foothills.
129 Hor. Carm. 1v.4 and 14; Iv.5 and 2, lines 41-60.
130 Contra, however, Zanker 1987 (F 632) 128. There are still many disagreements about the
- identity of individual figures: see, ¢.g., the next note.

131, Zanker 1987 (F 632) 219, contests the view that two of the little boys are barbarian captives,
and thinks that they are, after all, Gaius and Lucius Caesar.

132 Buchner 1982 (F 306); Zanker 1987 (F 632) 149-50. Unmentioned in the Res Gestae: had it
already been discovered that the ‘clock was wrong’? (Pliny, HN xxxvi.72—-3).

133 EJ? 14. The other was placed on the spina of the Circus Maximus. Their transport and erection
were a tremendous technological feat. 14 EJ? 98.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

16 B.C.—A.D. 14 97

official powers lapsed and required renewal. Needless to say, they were
duly renewed, for a cautious five years, including Agrippa’s tribunician
power.!35 A tiresome complication is added to the story of official
powers by Dio’s statement that the cura morum of Augustus was renewed
in 12 B.C. for five years;!% for, if Augustus possessed it at all, he had had
it, on Dio’s own account, for five years from 19 B.c., and its renewal
should have occurred two years sooner. In the Res Gestae it is asserted
that the offer of a cura morum was made again in 11 B.c., but declined.
There was, however, a revision of the Senate list in 11 B.c., performed by
virtue of censoria potestas, perhaps Dio’s garbled tale is an echo of that
temporary grant. A much more significant constitutional fact is that in 13
B.C. Agrippa’s imperium was, at last, defined as maius.!3’ For a brief span
he and Augustus had equal formal authority as rulers of the Roman
world; it was a joint rule of two colleagues, the one superior to the other
only in auctoritas. We notice the immense significance of that experiment
all too little because fate decreed that it should be so brief; for in March
12 B.C., only a few days after another great ceremony, stressed in the Res
Gestae, the solemn assembly of the Roman people at which, at long last,
Augustus became pontifex maximus,'38 Agrippa died.!39 Catastrophe
following hard on the heels of triumph is an obstinate motif in the story
of the age.

But the engine of Roman imperialism, having been turned on, was not
allowed to falter: Tiberius Nero and Nero Drusus embarked at once on
their great joint aristeia of 12-9 B.C. in the north, and Augustus set
himself at Aquileia and other northern towns, to be in touch with the
grand strategy. Tiberius already knew, before he left for Illyricum, what
he was going to have to do: divorce Agrippa’s daughter, Vipsania, by
whom he had a son,‘and marry lulia, Agrippa’s widow. The marriage
took place in 11 B.c., and caused all parties untold misery: lives sacrificed
to duty. Augustus was relentless in his demand for co-operation, from
high as from low, and there are straws in the wind, by the middle of the
reign, that not even those well-disposed in general were keen to co-
operate on his stern terms. Hence various experiments to get the Senate
to work properly, and to encourage the elite not to turn their backs on
public service, which belong in this decade.!40

To celebrate the second year of the northern campaigns, in which
Drusus, the younger stepson but the favourite of the ruler and the
public,'#! had the more spectacular part, both he and Tiberius were
voted ovations and ornamenta triumphalia, and in their honour there was a

135 Dio Liv.28.1. 13% Dio Liv.30.1. 137 Dio Liv.28.1; see above, n.113.

38 RG to. The former triumvir Lepidus had never been deprived of that priestly office, and had
remained a senator until his death, though not permitted to live in Rome.

13 The consular Fasti of 12 B.c. are strange: Syme deduces plague.

10 See ch. 3 below, pp. 124~5. 40 Tac. Ann. 1.41.3, favor vulgi.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

98 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

distribution of 400 sesterces per head and games were held.!42 But then
Octavia died, Augustus’ sister and Antony’s widow, who had given and
inspired devotion. Drusus spoke the laudation, as her son-in-law.

For the third year, 10 B.c., Augustus accompanied the headquarters to
Gaul, where the ‘Altar at the Confluence of Rhéne and Arar’ was
dedicated as a focus in the West for cult of the ruler, and, on the selfsame
day, the future emperor Claudius was born, son of Drusus and the
younger Antonia. (The prevailing view, drawing an inference from Dio,
is that the dedication was in 12 B.c. It involves a strained interpretation
of Suetonius’ ‘selfsame day’; and Augustus could not have been present
at Lugdunum in that year, whereas in 10 we have corroboration from a
papyrus that he was.)!43 In the winter Drusus did not return to Rome,
but entered upon his consulship of 9 B.c. in absence; and in that year he
carried Roman arms to the river Elbe. Those were noteworthy military
achievements: Augustus and both his stepsons took imperatorial salu-
tations, Tiberius celebrated the ovation voted to him, and Drusus was
due to celebrate his. Whereupon death struck again: Drusus, the darling
of all, died, in his consular year, aged 29, on 24 September — there is no
record of any suffect consul being created to fill the brief vacancy.
Tiberius made all speed, and, according to Dio, just managed to greet his
brother before he died.“ For Tiberius above all it was a catastrophe: as a
united force they had had much to achieve.

Augustus did not permit the expansion in Germany to pause; he
simply transferred Tiberius to that front. Nevertheless, to him also
Drusus’ departure was a bad blow, coming so soon upon those of
Agrippa and Octavia; it may not be fanciful to detect a growing rigidity
in Augustus’ attitudes and proceedings, now that he was deprived of the
personalities from whom he had derived support and counsel. But there
is aremarkable further tale that the reader must be asked to estimate, for
it plays quite a part in recent accounts: ‘republicanist’ opposition on the
part of the stepsons. It derives from Suetonius, who says that Drusus at
some time wrote to Tiberius ‘about forcing Augustus to restore liberty’;
there was plainly some historical source that gave Drusus that colour-
ing.'45 Conspiracies are mentioned by Dio at the end of his account of the
year 9 B.C., and in the very next year a new rule was made that slaves
could be compulsorily purchased by the state so as to make them
available as witnesses against their former masters in cases of treason.
Have we, then, uncovered the ‘crisis of 9 B.c.’? There were those who
believed that Augustus suspected Drusus and had him poisoned; also,
that none other than Tiberius had reported the treasonable correspon-

142 L. Piso also had ornamenta triumpbalia for a Bellum Thracicum, probably in 11 B.c.
143 Dio Ltv.32.1; Suet. Claud. 2.1; POxy 3020, col. 1, line 4. Absence of Augustus is, admittedly,

not impossible: in 9 B.c., for example, he was at Ticinum and cannot have attended the consecration
of the Ara Pacis. 14 Dio Lv.2.1. 145 Suet. Tib. 30.1; Claud. 1.4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

16 B.C.—A.D. 14 99

dence to his stepfather. Suetonius, however, who records all that, gives
one reason for hesitating, namely that there is so much evidence that
Drusus was a favourite of Augustus: he had a place in the ruler’s will, for
instance. Antiquity was given to novelettes about poisoning; we do not
have to accept that tale, and the conspiracies alluded to by Dio are
unrelated. But it may bea fact that the brothers had discussed the kind of
res publica they would like to serve under, and that Tiberius had
undertaken to lay their views before Augustus while he was heavily
reliant on them. We can imagine how, with Drusus gone, the sole effect
would be to make Augustus reluctant to leave things to Tiberius.

The year 8 B.c. was twenty years from that sixth consulship when
Augustus had begun handing the res publica back to the Senate and
people: vicennalia, it would have been called ina later century, and it was,
if mutedly, celebrated (though hand in hand with celebration went,
again, loss: Maecenas first, and Horace shortly after). A “census was
completed, by consular imperium (a special, conceivably celebratory,
grant), with a revision of the Senate list and — a rare curiosity — an
extension of the pomerium of Rome.' Now, too, the month Sextilis was
renamed ‘Augustus’.!47 The anniversary was accompanied, as it had to
be, by another formal renewal of Augustus’ powers, for — surprisingly
but perhaps also in celebration — a further complete decade; what did not
accompany it was any acknowledgement of Tiberius as collega imperii: no
love existed there, and no trust, and other possibilities were nearly in
sight.

Yet the campaign of Tiberius in 7 B.c. was triumphant, leaving
Germany ‘practically ready to become a province of the Roman
empire’,'48 and permitting the discharge of large numbers of legionaries
over the next few years.!49 Tiberius, who was, that year, consul for the
second time, celebrated a full, formal triumph, and afterwards laid the
foundation of a temple of Concord in the Forum Romanum, his
thoughts perhaps still upon the lost partnership.

There were relatively everyday tasks and problems of government,
not necessarily trivial. One such was an accusation, astonishingly, of
ambitus, electoral bribery, against all the magistrates, presumably of the
year 8. Augustus took care not to peer into that too closely, but he did
make new rules to reduce bribery at the consular elections in the future.
The very fact that it occurred shows that there was still popular choice,
but it is principally a pointer to something else. What was amiss was that
for twenty years Augustus had insisted on the being, in the old tradition,
only two consuls a year (barring emergencies); but the office was still

4% Boatwright 1986 (c 33). 447 Dio 1v.6.6. See n. 51 above.
143 Vell. Pat. 11.97.4; but see ch. 4 below, pp. 181-3.
149 The Res Gestae record troop discharges in 7, 6, 4, 3 and 2 B.c.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

100 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

eagerly sought after and fought over, as the crown of a social career, and
soon Augustus experimented again, dividing the year into two halves,
with two ‘ordinary’ consuls followed by two ‘suffect’ consuls, a system
that became regular from 5 B.c.

Natural disasters, too, never ceased to punctuate the history of the
biggest conurbation in the ancient world, and governments never did
enough. There was a very grave fire in 7 B.c., just before the funeral
games in memory of Agrippa. Augustus took occasion to reorganize the
local structure of the city into fourteen official ‘regions’, with a
devolution down to the 263 vici or ‘blocks’, the latter to be responsible
for fire precautions. It did not prove adequate.

His coeval generation dying away, Augustus was obliged to place
reliance on the younger folk. For Herod the Great and his dynastic
problems and brutal treatment of his sons, Augustus had the greatest
contempt,!5° but that turned into a terrible irony. In the year 6 B.c.
Tiberius Nero received a renewal of imperium, plus tribunician power for
five years, which proclaimed him to the world as collega imperii; and at
that very moment he declared his wish to retire from state responsibili-
ties and took himself off to Rhodes. Augustus staged a bit of. illness to
detain him, but it did not work. The historian Velleius, adulatory of
Tiberius, exaggerates the consequences of his retirement into a sort of
paralysis of the res publica,'5! and the loss of the full text of Dio for those
years contributes to a possibly false picture; but it was undeniably major
trouble in high politics.

The modern, as well as the ancient, interpretation is that it was
dynastic trouble. Gaius and Lucius Caesar were of an age to begin their
progress into the limelight (and ‘above themselves’ already, according to
Dio, who writes that in 6 B.c. the people ‘chose’ Gaius as consul and
Augustus had to step in and quash it: a demonstration, perhaps).'52 In 5
B.C. Gaius was made a pontifex and designated consul for a.p. 1, and a
new title was invented for him, princeps iuventutis or honorary president
of the order of equites, and a distribution of money was made in his
honour; in 4 B.c. he had aseat on the great consilinm called to settle the fate
of Judaea upon the death of Herod. In 2 8.c. Lucius was made an auger
and designated consul for a.p. 4, and became joint princeps inventutis.
What is more, the coinage was the medium for a course of advertisement
for the pair such as neither Drusus nor Tiberius had been accorded.'53
So, then, Tiberius moved downstage, and the questions that gather
about Agrippa’s departure seventeen years earlier repeat themselves.
Did he go in self-effacing co-operation or in rage and frustration?
Scholars have conjured up binary opposites, a Claudian faction led by

150 Macrob. Saf. 1.4.11. 151 Vell. Pat. 11.100.1.
152 Dio Lv.9.1-2. 13 Zanker 1987 (F 632) 218-26.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

16 B.C.—A.D. 14 101

Livia Drusilla on behalf of her sons (now reduced to one) and a Julian,
led by Iulia on behalf of hers, whose opposition was destined to tear at
the vitals of the regime until Augustus’ death, and beyond. That picture
may be not so much wrong as a bit too simple. First, there could never
have been any doubt, from the moment that Gaius and Lucius were
adopted, that if Augustus, and they, survived long enough for them to
grow to manhood they would be his chosen successors; Tiberius Nero
and Nero Drusus could never have expected a role greater than that of
Agrippa. Again, it was in 6 B.c., before the formal elevation of the youths
began, that Tiberius retired; that elevation looks more like the ruler’s
instant response to, than the cause of, Tiberius’ desertion. And finally,
you hardly make a man collega imperii to kick him out: rather, to try to
keep him. The latter end of Tiberius’ Rhodian sojourn was certainly an
unofficial exile; but there is a wider story to which his initial retirement
belongs, the story of people’s growing unwillingness to work with and
for Augustus, and to play their roles in the drama according to his script.
Tiberius Nero, with the independent spirit he had shared with his
brother (and shared, to their mutual cost, with his wife, Augustus’
daughter), saw himself type-cast as collega imperii, the new Agrippa, and
rebelled. To Agrippa, his status as collega imperii had been an insurance
for the succession of his sons, and part, anyway, of a lifelong collabor-
ation. For Tiberius it was neither: therefore, Augustus must carry on
alone.

The impression of a political standstill is doubtless false, but not much
can be done to compensate. One important experiment of 4 B.C. serves to
help fill the gap: it is known only from an inscription.'54 By a senatus
consultum of that year, on a proposal from Augustus, a novel, expedited
procedure became available to provincials alleging extortion by Roman
magistrates, in all but the gravest (i.e. capital) cases. It probably was
genuinely quicker; on the other hand it contained an unadvertised
advantage for senatorial governors by enabling them to be tried by a
committee of their peers instead of the mainly non-senatorial juries of the
quaestio repetundarum.

But 2 B.c. was a year of crisis — or so it has been called. Certainly it
contained paradox enough to satisfy any novelist. It began with a
tremendous burst of ceremony, symbolism and festivity. Augustus was
sixty; he was consul ordinarius (he had taken the consulship in 5 B.c. to
preside over the début of Gaius Caesar, and now did the same for
Lucius); and on 5 February he was officially designated pater patriae,
‘Father of the Nation’. The title crowns the Res Gestae, and Suetonius
quotes the very words in which it was bestowed and accepted.'55 It was
not (though historians recently have tried to make it) a constitutional

14 Ej? 311, v. 185 Suet. Aug. 58.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

102 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

statement, nor a symbol that the state was ultimately governed by the
concept of patria potestas, nor an ingeniously invented jurisprudential
basis for equating attacks on the ‘divine family’ with treason against the
state.!56 It was an honour ~— an extension of the title parens patriae that had
been accorded to Marius, to Cicero, and to Iulius Caesar, a supremely
high public decoration.

Augustus’ quid pro quo was (besides a distribution of money) some very
grand consular games — a new set, the /udi Martiales. The name was not
fortuitous, for on 12 May'57 the two young Caesars dedicated the most
symbolic and triumphalist of all the Augustan public buildings, the
temple of Mars Ultor at the far end of the new Augustan Forum, where
those long-ago recovered standards would repose permanently. With its
porticoes, friezes and caryatids, and the statues of all the Roman
triumphatores,'°8 the Augustan Forum is the building that must be most
attentively listened to. Its emphasis is, actually, not so much on the
‘divine family’ (and we may be inclined to guess why not) as on victory
and the long, successful tale of Roman imperialism: hard, bold, assertive,
confident — and for constant public use, especially for law-courts.159
And, in celebration of the celebration, another marvellous entertainment
was provided, the ‘naval battle of the Greeks and Persians’, in a specially
constructed artificial lake beside the Tiber; that, too, is recalled with
pride in the Res Gestae.

So it was a many-sided paradox that, later in that year, Iulia, the
daughter of Augustus, was deported to the island of Pandateria. Her
mother Scribonia went with her into exile. Multiple adulteries were the
charge against Iulia, or the excuse.'© Tacitus says that Augustus chose to
treat those adulteries as treason,'©! implying that he did not believe
lulia’s offence to have been treason; but modern historians have woven
here a tale of a major attemptat a coup d@’état. It ought to be allowed, in any
case, that immorality at the heart of that ‘divine family’ that Augustus
wanted as the paradigm for his society was a blow to pride and optimism
in the year of the title pater patriae; and, further, that Iulia, like Tiberius,
was committing the crime of repudiating her role in the scenario as
composed by her father. That might be enough and to spare. It is the
involvement, as the foremost among Iulia’s alleged lovers, of Iullus
Antonius that, to some detective minds, has suggested more.'62 He was
either executed or forced to commit suicide: the other named men

1% Contra, respectively, Salmon 1956 (c 204); Lacey ‘Patria Potestas’, in Rawson 1986 (F 54) 121—
44; Bauman 1967 (F 640) 235-9. 157 For this date, rather than in August, Simpson 1977 (F 578).

88 Zanker n.d. [¢. 1968] (F 625); Zanker 1987 (F 632) 215. It had been long in building: Macrob.
Sat. 4.9. Forum dedicated earlier than temple: Degrassi 1945 (F 346).

459 Suet. Aag. 29.1-2; tablets from Puteoli, Camodeca 1986 (F 311). 10 Dio Lv. 12.10-16.

161 Tac. Amn. 1.24.2. 162 It did not to Tacitus, Aan. 1v.44.5; but cf. Sen. De Brev. Vit. 4.5.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

16 B.C.—A.D. 14 103

involved incurred mere banishment,'® an inadequate reaction if they
had been part of a treasonable conspiracy. They were members of
families of the nobility, indeed,!* and one of them had been consul in 9
B.C., as Iullus was in 10; but hardly of prominence or stature, apart from
him, to justify a picture of a ‘faction of the nobility’ opposed to the
‘radical’ Tiberius. Iullus is different: son of Antony and Fulvia, spared
after Actium, half-brother of the Antonias, he had become a favoured
court figure. As praetor he had given the games for Augustus’ birthday
in 13 B.c.; he had reached the consulship in 10 B.c. and Dio’s epitome
states that he was allegedly out for monarchia. Actium reversed and
revenged: was that the idea?

The greatest sobriety of judgment is needed here. One matter for
pause is what fate we are to suppose Iullus and Iulia had in store for
Gaius and Lucius Caesar. Were they to perish in the bloodbath? Was
Iulia to sacrifice her sons? Or was the whole scheme designed to bolster
their succession against Tiberius Nero? But they were secure as things
were, and it was Tiberius who lived in eclipse and danger. And was
Iullus to be content with prominence as a mere caretaker for Iulia’s sons,
an alternative Tiberius? Not, of course, that the craziness of a proposal is
proof that people did not entertain it.

In 2 B.C. prefects of the praetorian guard were appointed for the first
time, and some are tempted to relate that novelty to the alleged state of
emergency; but caution will suggest hesitation. First, they were a pair,
and mere equifes at that; secondly, this was certainly not the moment of
creation of the praetorian guard, which already existed. It is not known
what commanding officer the guard had before 2 B.c. — quite probably
Augustus himself, with no intermediary; in which case it is hard to see
the establishment of a pair of equestrian prefects as strengthening the
ruler’s control in face of a crisis.

This is usually held to have been the season of Ovid’s Ars Amatoria.
That chronology has been challenged,'® but Dio records some other
activities of the ‘smart set’ that were capable of making Augustus’ blood
boil.16 The simple man’s alternative, about this story, is therefore still
the best: morality uppermost in the ruler’s stern plan for triumphant
Rome; revelations — perhaps, indeed, made by enemies — of a fast-living
set, with Iulia and Iullus at its centre; humiliation and rage of the ruler
matching the psychological climate of resistance to his relentless
imperatives.

The social imperatives were evident in that year in another context.
The suffect consuls, Lucius Caninius Gallus and Gaius Fufius Geminus,

163, The epitome of Dio says others were executed, and on a charge of conspiracy, but names no
names. 16 Syme 1986 (A 95) 91. 165 Syme 1978 (B 179). 16 Dio Lv.10.11.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

104 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

put through the comitia a law setting limits to the number of slaves an
individual master might free by testament; and that may well have a
relationship to another change attributed to 2 B.c. whereby the number
of recipients of the free corn ration was cut down to 200,000. Too much
foreign blood in the citizen body, and too many layabouts!

Phraates IV of Parthia had just, after a long reign, been murdered, and
succeeded, by his favourite son, who, with anti-Roman zeal, had assisted
in the ejection of the king of Armenia, all that while a Roman nominee.
There was an irritable international correspondence, and an air in Rome
as of the prelude to a Parthian war; but Augustus repeated almost exactly
the successful formula of twenty years before.'6” Tiberius Nero had been
his envoy then, and could have been so again, but he was in retirement:
indeed, since all his formal powers had run out, and no attempt had been
made to renew them, he was — like his wife — an exile. In any case, the
occasion could be used to give Gaius Caesar his first impressive role in
the official drama; so in 1 B.c., invested with an imperium for the whole
East, he set out, amidst a cloud of diplomatic advisers and to the strains
of eager poetasters.!68 There was no state of war, so no hurry; in A.D. 1,169
when he entered in absentia upon his long-prearranged consulship, Gaius
was engaged in some sort of campaign in Nabatean Arabia.!7° The hopes
he carried with him (along with his brother, who died, however, in A.D. 2
at Massilia of some non-sinister cause) are revealed in a letter of
Augustus to him written in September, A.p. 2: ‘... with you two playing
your part like true men and taking over the sentry-post from me’.!7! The
great diplomatic exchange of courtesies duly took place, on an island in
the Euphrates,'72 followed, as it were canonically, by the march to set a
Roman protégé again on the Armenian throne. This time it was not a
formality. At an unknown place, Artagera, Gaius received a stab-
wound, though it seemed to heal, and both he and Augustus took
imperatorial salutations.173 And then occurred the strangest event in the
whole tale. Tiberius Nero had just been permitted to return to Rome, a
mere private citizen, with a question-mark upon his future;!74 and now
Gaius wrote home to say that 4e was going to retire into private life and
contemplation.!75 He was 23. People said at the time, and they were very
likely right, that Gaius was a mortally sick man, and, to Augustus’

167 See above, p. 90.

168 A propemptic effusion: Antipater, Poem 47 (Gow and Page 1968 (B 65)). Cf. Ov. Ars Am.
LIq7d. 169 The year immediately following 1 B.c. 170 Romer 1979 (c 301).

11 Gell. NA xv.7.3 (there was a collection of Augustus’ ‘Letters to his Grandson’). At Pisa, after
his death, in an elogivar (EJ? 69) he is called ‘already designated princeps’.

172 Velleius was present, and describes it, 1.201.

'3 In a.p. 3, by Syme’s reckonings (1979 (c 230)).

174 Bowersock 1984 (c 40) speculates about the divided allegiance in the East between Tiberius
* and Gaius Caesar. 15 Dio tv.10a.8.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

16 B.C.—A.D. 14 105

culminating dismay, in a.D. 4 he died; in so short an interval were both
the young hopefuls gone. But one can imagine, even before that, the
effect of the letter of resignation: ‘You too, son’. Like Tiberius and like
lulia: this was the canker that had rotted Augustus’ third decade, that the
people of his choice did not want to tread his path of duty. When, in a.p.
3, his constitutional powers were again renewed (and for a full decade)
there could be no word of Tiberius Nero or of Gaius Caesar, for both
were sulking in their tents; there was no collega imperii.

But in a.p. 4 Augustus, alone, implacable!” and indefatigable, with
imperialism and social reform still on his agenda, bowed to political
necessity. Tiberius Nero was rehabilitated faute de mieux, received
tribunician power for ten years,'” and was appointed to command in
Germany,'78 though apparently even then not with a general imperium
mains. The dynastic goal was still the old one. Augustus’ nearest
relatives, apart from his daughter, were now her surviving three
children, her daughters Iulia and Agrippina and her son Agrippa, the so-
called ‘Postumus’; and the goal determined the action. On 26 June A.D. 4
Augustus adopted Tiberius and Agrippa as his sons — ‘for the sake of the
res publica’, he is supposed to have said in Tiberius’ case!’9 (though we
cannot recapture the tone of that remark, whether of bleak resignation or
of confident affirmation). For Tiberius, the choice was power and the
chance of new military glory, even if only, still, as a caretaker, over
against eclipse and perhaps worse. As for Agrippa, he must not be
treated as just peripheral to the story.!8 The ancient writers all describe
him as truculent and retarded;!8! he may have become so, or this may be
no more than the official story by which his later exile and elimination
were justified. But in a.p. 4 he was a still viable, if eleventh-hour,
replacement for his deceased brothers. In any case, that was not the full
extent of the ruler’s scheme. For, at the same time, Tiberius adopted his
own nephew, Nero Claudius Germanicus, son of the adored Drusus, to
count as brother to his own son, the second Drusus. Germanicus was
married to Agrippina, so it was their children who would carry the
Julian inheritance — an exceedingly efficient way of repairing the badly
torn ‘divine family’.

Legislatively, a.p. 4'82 was the year of the Lex Aelia Sentia, the most

"6 He did, under popular pressure, allow his daughter to change her place of exile as far as
Rhegium. '7 So Dio iv.13.2. Suetonius is wrong.

1% See ch. 4 below; Wells 1972 (£ 601) 158-61. Not a new war: there had been activity all the
while. Domitius Ahenobarbus, who reached the Elbe, and Marcus Vinicius had both won ornamenta
triumpbalia. 179 Vell. Pat. 11.104.1; Suet. Tib. 21.3. 18 Levick 1976 (c 366) ch. 4.

18) Vell. Pat. t1.112.7; Tac. Aas. 1.5; Suet. Ang. 65.1; Dio Lv.32.1-2.

1% The ‘conspiracy of Gnaeus Cornelius Cinna Magnus’, placed in this year by Dio Lv.14-22.1
(cf. Sen. Clem. 1.9) is a moral fiction. The Lex Valeria Cornelia of a.p. 5 is described in ch. 3 below,
p- 127.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

106 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

far-reaching of the statutes regulating slavery and freedom from sla-
very;)83 also of important improvements in the administration of justice,
notably the addition of a fourth decuria of persons liable for jury
service.1& Militarily, Tiberius’ campaigns in Germany in A.D. 4, 5 and 6
were, as twelve years before, grand successes:!®5 in A.D. 5 Roman armies
reached the Elbe again, and in .D. 6 the pincers were set to close ona
great prize, the Bohemian kingdom of Maroboduus.

It was the last moment of imperial optimism in Augustus’ reign. What
was left, looked at narrowly, takes on a colouring of disaster and
disillusion, not least — though not only — in the military sphere, where it
hurt hardest: the historical irony of that letter to Gaius Caesar becomes
very acute. So before plunging into the gloom it is as well to remind
ourselves that Augustus had succeeded in establishing a political order
that survived, with modifications, for some centuries and a territorial
hegemony that expanded for another hundred years and for two
centuries lost nothing that it had included at his death.

The forces were poised against Bohemia when the shock came, the
news that all Illyricum was in rebellion. Tiberius’ efforts of fifteen years
before had not proved lasting. Bohemia had to be abandoned, and
Tiberius to return to the front he had known, to battle for three heavy
years against a national uprising.'8 And it was not the only trouble of
those years.!87 We hear of cities in revolt, and proconsuls having to be
appointed instead of chosen by the lot and to have their tenures
prolonged. The wild Isaurians in Asia Minor were in ferment, and
Cossus Cornelius Lentulus won ornamenta triumphalia for operations in
Africa against the Gaetulians. Sardinia had to be redesignated as a part of
the ‘province of Caesar’ because of a recrudescence of the corsairs. There
was once again a Judaean problem: Archelaus, who had received the
lion’s share on the death of Herod, had been denounced by his people
and exiled to Gaul, and Rome had to take Judaea over as an equestrian
province.188

Resources were strained. The very nature of the professional army
came into question, its recruitment and its cost, especially that of
providing for time-expired soldiers. Augustus attempted to cut the cost
by lengthening the term of service.'89 He also put to the Senate the
problem of funding an overall increase in state income,'® met a stony
silence, and so, in A.D. 6, imposed on Roman citizens a death-duty of 5

'8 See ch. 18 below, pp. 893-7. 18 Suet. Axg. 32.3; Bringmann 1973 (D 249).

185 Vell. Pat. 11.105—7; and see ch. 4 below, pp. 183-4.

38 Five legions were very nearly cut to pieces in a.p. 7, with severe loss of junior officers: Vell.
Pat. 11.112.6. 187 Dio Lv.28.1-4.

18 Dio Lv.27.6; Joseph. BJ 1.111 and 117. 189 Dio Lv.23.1.

19 He also set up a committee of consular senators to review expenditure in the public sector.
Plus ¢a change...

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

16 B.C.—A.D. 14 107

per cent on the estates of the moderately rich and upwards, if left to any
but their families.'%! Its purpose was to fund a new Military Treasury to
provide the retirement payments to the soldiers. Augustus primed it
with 170 million sesterces of his own money,'%2 but the death-duty was
the first direct taxation of Roman citizens since 167 B.c., and was
regarded by the rich, who paid it, with outrage.

The years a.p. 6 and 7 have the fairest claim of all the years of
Augustus’ reign to be called ‘crisis’ years, for upon military and financial
anxieties, and widespread disaffection, there supervened natural catas-
trophes and dynastic discords. Nature did her best to prove that none of
the problems of the great conurbation had been even halfway solved:
food shortages led to rationing, and there was another bad fire. A new
fire service was established, since the devolution solution had proved
inadequate: thus began the vigi/es of the imperial period, under an
equestrian prefect.!93 But the plebs was disgruntled: there was a spate of
revolutionary talk, and flysheets circulated at night.!% According to
Dio, a certain Publius Rufus was thought to have instigated those things,
but to have had more powerful hidden backers — a story with repercus-
sions that will emerge.

In a.p. 7 Germanicus, quaestor that year, was sent to Illyricum with
troop reinforcements for Tiberius. They included not only the products
of a rare levy of citizens at Rome,!% but also slaves purchased by the
government and manumitted to enable them to be enrolled.!% Dio
transmits a story that Augustus suspected Tiberius of dragging his feet
and sent Germanicus to stir things up: Tiberius had actually said he had
soldiers in plenty, and sent some back.197 We may well suspect political
manoeuvrings behind these facts, but they remain obscure. At the
elections there were riots, and Augustus, impatient with the proprieties,
nominated all the magistrates himself — the only time: he had worked at
full stretch for fifty years, and crisis was taking its toll. He began to give
up public appearances, and appointed a committee of senior senators to
take over the hearing of embassies.

There is a view amongst historians!% that in Augustus’ last decade all
was done to the tune of Tiberius, who returned to Rome after each
annual campaign. That would be not unlikely, though the arguments
tend to be circular and it was normal for commanders-in-chief to return
to Rome between campaigning seasons. The question whether it was
Tiberius’ tune that was being played is certainly very relevant to the next
item in the tale of ‘passion and politics’. No doubt it ought to have been

11 Dio Lv.25.5. 12 RG 17.

193, Dio Lv.26.4-5. A new 2 per cent tax on sales of slaves was instituted to fund the new service.
1% Dio Lv.27.2-3. 195 Ej? 368. 19% Dio tv.3F.1.

17 Vell. Pat. 113. 198 Already stated by Dio Lv.27.5.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

108 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

young Agrippa’s privilege to be quaestor and take the troops to
Germany; instead, probably in a.p. 6,199 he was removed from Rome to
Surrentum, and in a.D. 7 he was repudiated by Augustus and deported to
the island of Planasia. In a.p. 8 his sister also, young Iulia, suffered
banishment, never to return.2 Scholars deduce treason again, at the
heart of the ‘divine family’: a story going back to 23 B.c., of thirty years
of crisis in the ‘Party’, of the Julian faction’s last bid against the,
otherwise, now inexorable accession of the hated Claudian. Some
speculations on those lines are too close to fiction, but there is a case.
Why the exile of Agrippa? He was alleged to have been, or turned into, a
cretinous thug; but Germanicus’ brother Claudius, spastic and eccentric,
though kept out of the limelight, was neither repudiated nor banished:
his star was yet to rise. Agrippa, too, had been denied the limelight,
being accorded no title of princeps inventutis and no permission to stand
early for office. Was that at Tiberius’ behest? Had Agrippa less than
mildly suggested that it was not good enough? Suetonius carries a story
about a person (of low status) who ‘in the name of young Agrippa put
out to the public a most bitter letter about him’ (Augustus).”°! But those
who rush to make use of the tale fail to notice its ambiguities: it is not
clear whether the biographer meant ‘on Agrippa’s behalf’ or ‘pretending
it was written by Agrippa’, nor whether the letter was supposed to have
been a private one that was wrongly made public — and if so to whom it
was addressed — or a letter actually addressed to the public.

As for Iulia, the official account was, again, adultery, though with only
one partner, Decimus Iunius Silanus — who was merely told that he was
no longer a friend of the emperor, which he took as dismissal from
Rome.?0 She, by contrast, was banished, implacably, for life (and it
turned out to be twenty years); she was supported financially — this we
must take into account — by Livia Drusilla.2°3 No less to be taken into
account is the identity of Iulia’s husband: he was Lucius Aemilius
Paullus, who appears in Suetonius’ canon of conspirators against
Augustus.2% He is there linked with one Plautius Rufus, who reminds
historians (though it is a thin point) of the Publius Rufus who is
supposed to have spread the revolutionary pamphlets in a.p. 6. Were
husband and wife convicted of conspiracy? And of joint, or separate,
conspiracies? It has been common to suppose that Paullus was executed,
but a strong case has been made against that.?05 If he was only banished,
that is insufficient punishment for conspiracy; and Iulia’s offence is better
seen as what it was stated to be. Augustus insisted on the child she bore

19) Vell. Pat. u.112.7.

2 Ovid, too, had to go, and he, too, was never to be allowed back home.

201 Suet. Aug. 51.1. 22 Unlike Ovid, he was allowed back by Tiberius, Tac. Asn. 111.24.
203 Tac. Ann. 1v.71.4. 204 Suet. Aug. 19.1; Syme 1986 (A 95) ch.g.

205 Syme 1986 (A 95) 123-5.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

16 B.C.—A.D. 14 109

not being allowed to live, and the sharp-eyed Tacitus found no other cat
to let out of the bag. Nor is either Iulia named in Suetonius’ canon of
conspirators.

But yet another mysterious set of facts adds fuel to the hypothesis of
conspiracy. There were two — or in an ironical sense perhaps three —
attempts to achieve a break-out for Agrippa. In Suetonius’ conspiracy-
list ‘Audasius and Epicadus had intended to spirit Iulia the daughter and
Agrippa the grandson from the islands where they were held to the
armies.’2% There is something amiss with the tale, because by the time
Agrippa was sent to his island ‘Iulia the daughter’ had left hers. Perhaps
it is a mere slip for ‘Iulia the granddaughter’; but the elder Iulia was still
in exile and still a potential focus for dissidence, so the error may be
different. In any case, the story reinforces the view that Agrippa was in
banishment because he was dangerous; and the danger was to Tiberius.
The second story is how, immediately upon Augustus’ death, Agrippa’s
slave Clemens went hotfoot to Planasia but arrived too late, the primum
facinus novi principatus having already occurred — and how, two years
later, he obtained a following by passing himself off as Agrippa, was
arrested and put to death, and care was taken not to probe deeply into
what were suspected to be his powerful backers ‘in the house of the
princeps and amongst senators and equites.2°’ That story finds credence
amongst historians; the third, ironical indeed if true, still divides them. It
is that Augustus, shortly before his death, visited Agrippa in his exile and
they were reconciled.%8 Whether true or not, that tale, too, points in a
consistent direction: Agrippa was politically of high significance. And it
may well be that in conjuring up a conspiracy against Augustus (or
Tiberius) in the years A.D. 6 to 8 historians have tried to be too clever.
The cai bono of the elimination of Iulia’s children was Tiberius, and they
may have been the victims rather than the authors of a deadly dynastic
struggle.

On the return of Tiberius from Illyricum at the beginning of A.D. 9
there was a ceremony of reditus in his honour in the Saepta; and
resentment, not on the part of the plebs but of its betters, spilt over: the
equites protested against the rules of the /ex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus,
with their penalties upon the childless. Old Augustus read the assembled
populace in the Forum a furious lecture about childlessness;? and while
Tiberius travelled back to the front for what was to prove the conclusive
campaign against the rebels in Dalmatia, a Lex Papia Poppaea was put to
the assembly by the suffect consuls. It modified the statute of twenty-five

26 Suet. Aug. 19.2. 2 Tac. Ann. 11.39-40.

28 Tac. Aan. 1.5.1 (a ‘rumour’); Dio Lvt.30.1. Dismissed by Syme 1986 (4 93) 415. Part, perhaps,
of a propaganda campaign against Tiberius and Livia.

2 Dio Lv1.1—-9 invents two speeches; Suet. Axg. 34 with 89, 2 and Livy, Per. 59.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

110 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

years earlier: Dio and Suetonius, however confusing and incompatible
their accounts, give an impression that concessions were made, whereas
Tacitus speaks expressly to the contrary.2!0 For the unmarried, at any
rate, one should not underestimate the public ignominy in which the
legislation sought to place them: if the ordo equester (being, presumably, .
the biggest concentration of wealthy cae/ibes) thought they had influence
with the aged ruler, they were sharply rebuffed.

When, late in a.p. 9, with the great rebellion crushed, Tiberius and
Germanicus returned to Rome, full triumphs were voted to Augustus
and Tiberius, and Germanicus was voted ornamenta triumphalia, praetor-
ian standing, and permission to stand for the consulship ahead of
normal.2!! But no triumphs ensued, for, five days later, the mood of
congratulation was shattered by the yet more unimaginable blow of the
‘disaster of Varus’;?!2 three legions lost, and everything beyond the
Rhine lost with them. The optimism of Roman conquest had, as in
Illyricum, proved unjustified, imperium sine fine unattainable. Augustus’
nerve very nearly broke, and we are told he had thoughts of suicide. The
defeat laid bare the slender military base on which the empire rested; the
Illyricum campaign had already stretched manpower to the limits.
Conscription was applied, and stepped up, and there are tales of people
executed for refusing the levy. All veterans were recalled, freedmen
again enrolled. It was a question whether the Roman people would stand
it: fear of a ¢umultus in Rome led to drafting of an extra military force, and
the ruler’s personal German bodyguard was held no longer safe.?!3

Tiberius had to take on Germany. He toiled for three more hard
years,?!4 with nothing to show for all of them that could be treated
triumphally; when his ceremony of reditus finally took place,?!5 and his
celebration of a full triumph, it was labelled not as ‘over the Germans’
but as the postponed triumph ‘over Illyricum’. There was to be no
provincia Germania.

In the year 12 Germanicus was consul. He was emerging as the new
‘limelight personality’: Dio has surprisingly much about his part in the
Illyrian and German campaigns, which suggests that someone must have
been writing them up.2!6 However, his consular year was anything but
cheerful. Natural disaster played its part again: the Tiber in spate, the
Circus flooded and the /adi Martiales displaced. A new, sinister, note is

210 Dio tvt.10; Suet. Aug. 34; Tac. Aan. 111.28.3-4.

211 Numerous subordinate commanders got ornamenta triumpbalia for their services during the
critical campaigns: Messalla Messallinus, M. Lepidus, C. Vibius Postumus, M. Plautius Silvanus.

212 A ‘set piece’ in Velleius, 11.117.2-119; another in Dio, Lv1.18—22.2. 213 Dio Lvr.23.

214 A vexed problem of chronology plagues these years,crystallizing round the question whether
Tiberius’ triumph was in A.D. 12 or 13 (we know at least the day: 23 October).

215 Of which the Gemma Augustea is the visual monument: Simon 1986 (F 577) 156-61 and
Pl. ir. 216 Dio tvi.11 and 15.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

16 B.C.—A.D. 14 111

heard, of seditious literature burnt and authors punished. Dates are
uncertain, but this year is quite likely that of the banishment of the
abrasive, witty barrister Cassius Severus,?!7 for having ‘defamed men
and women of the highest status with licentious writings’ — not, to judge
from Tacitus’ phrase, the ruler himself; but the offence was treated, for
the first time, under the law of treason. One of Cassius’ sarcasms related
to the burning, by decision of the Senate, of the writings of a fellow-
barrister, Titus Labienus, who wrote history, it seems, with a
‘republicanist’ flavour: he committed suicide.2!8 And Ovid’s books had
been withdrawn from the libraries. The deterioration is evident: an
anxious, touchy government and a subservient Senate.

In A.D. 13 the constitutional powers of Augustus and Tiberius were
renewed again for ten years, and the imperium of Tiberius was at last
declared equal to that of Augustus:?!9 he was collega imperii. He had saved
the sum of things, twice, he was fifty-six, and his duty was now quietly to
take over, with Germanicus, his adopted son, and Drusus, his original
son, as the hopefuls for the succession. The senatorial sub-committee
that prepared business for the full Senate, which Augustus had always
used as his sounding-board, was given a revised membership and new
powers, enabling it to pass resolutions equivalent to formal senatus
consulta; Tiberius, Germanicus and Drusus joined it as regular
members.”20 The purpose was stated to be to relieve Augustus of regular
attendance at the Senate, but one can see how it could be an organ for
quiet transition. Not that Augustus was ‘going downhill’: paradoxically,
the very next thing we hear in Dio, when upper-class fretfulness over the
iniquities of the death-duty became vocal again, displays the hand of the
old manipulator still on the helm of policy. Augustus challenged the
senators, individually, to suggest any better way of raising the necessary
revenue, and then put in hand apparent preparations to institute an even
stiffer scheme (a land-tax on so/um Italicum), whereupon they decided to
keep the devil they knew.”?!

Augustus and Tiberius began a census, with a special grant of consular
imperium, and completed the /ustrum in the next year on 11 May.
Augustus travelled as far as Beneventum with Tiberius, who was on his
way to Illyricum. Velleius has it that Tiberius’ journey was ‘to consoli-
date in peace what he had conquered in war’,222 which is an admission
that there was not anything needing the attention of Tiberius in
Illyricum; but the two collegae imperii could not sit in Rome together. As

217 Tac. Ann. 1.72.3 with the notes of Goodyear 1981 (B 62). 218 Sen. Controv. x Praef. 4~8.

219 Vell. Pat. 1.121.1 with the note of Woodman 1983 (B 203); Suet. Tib. 20-21.1. There can be no
certainty just when Tiberius received that grant.

2 Dio vvt.28.2-3; Crook 1955 (D 10) 14-15. Cf. EJ? 379, which may have some genuine
documentary basis. 21 Dio Lv1.28.4-6. 2 Vell. Pat. 11.123.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

112 2. POLITICAL HISTORY, 30 B.C.TO A.D. 14

in Marcus Agrippa’s distant day, they must operate apart; yet, evidently,
it was no longer wise for Tiberius to be many days’ journey away.
Augustus, on his way home, spent a few days at Capri, which he had
acquired from the city of Naples, in exchange for Ischia, because he and
Tiberius liked it.223 He attended local games at Naples, and struggled as
far as an old family property at Nola, where, on 19 August, he died.

Transmission, both constitutional and dynastic, had been taken care
of. There was a collega imperii in place, and he should not have too many
problems, for all that three members of the ‘divine family’, Augustus’
nearest blood-relations, lived in exile — one, poor fellow, too dangerous
to be left.224 Factual power would depend on whether the system had
become sufficiently ingrained in Roman political life to survive, without
seriously imaginable alternative, the rule of successors less skilful and
less ruthless than Augustus; and in that respect his long reign had helped
to make success somewhat more likely than not. In the course of the
more than forty years since Actium a new age of European history had,
in fact, managed to struggle into being, but our narrative has at least
shown how far its genesis was from any kind of blueprint.

223 Suet. Aug. 92.2 Dio 111.43.2.
24 Pani 1979 (Cc 185) has acute, if over-stated, analysis of the dynastic situation.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 3

AUGUSTUS: POWER,
AUTHORITY, ACHIEVEMENT

Jj. A. CROOK

I. POWER

Rome’s tradition of government, down to Iulius Caesar, was character-
ized by distributed power and multiple sources of decision. That was
never to return. From 30 B.c. onwards, the whole Roman world found
itself in the grasp of a single ruler, possessing all power and making all
decisions, except insofar as he might choose to leave some of them to
others. We are insistently bidden to penetrate behind the ‘facade’ to the
‘reality’ of Augustus’ power, and some advantage is to be gained if, to
begin with, we separate the power — its extent and sources and the
functions it was used to accomplish — from the authority, which was the
dress in which the power was clothed. But we must remember that such a
separation is, in the long run, artificial, because, in the actual political life
of a nation, power and its formalizations are inextricably linked, and
where authority is entrenched recourse to power is unnecessary.
Tacitus, in a paragraph which, if its hostility of tone be discounted,
remains the most masterly succinct statement of what Augustus did,
writes thus: ‘... he laid aside the title of triumvir and paraded himself as
consul and as content with the tribunician authority for looking after the
commons. The soldiery he enticed with gifts, the people with corn, and
all alike with the charms of peace and quiet; and thus he edged forward
bit by bit (snsurgere paulatim), taking into his hands the functions of
Senate, magistrates, laws.”! Both as to the use of power, and its spheres of
application, and as to its translation into constitutional terms, insurgere
paulatim describes what occurred with profound insight. What did not
change or develop was the ruler’s hold on actual coercive power: he
possessed that, totally, from the start, and never let a particle of it slip
from his hands. Power, he had; functions, he increasingly took over;
formulations of that power and those functions he carefully fostered. But
one aspect deserves to be stressed from the outset: initiative. All policy
was decided by Augustus, as far as we know.” In making decisions he
naturally listened to representations from, and took advice from,
appropriate quarters, and, for all we know, he may have put into practice
' Tac. Ann. 1.2.1. 2 Millar 1977 (A 59) 616.

113

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

114 3. AUGUSTUS

policies proposed to him by others, though the state of the evidence
makes that difficult to demonstrate. But, apart from what he might
choose to leave to others, for example to the Senate, he presided over the
withering away of independent sources of initiative.

Those who urge the historian to look behind the ‘fagade’ and confront
the ‘reality’ of Augustus’ power mostly imply that he should acknow-
ledge that Augustus’ ultimate possibility of coercion lay in control of the
army. That is a truism, and scarcely penetrates far enough, for we have
still to ask, especially in the case of that first sole Roman ruler, how he
was able to control the army. The Roman Republic had had no post of
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces; and, until it began to change
in the crucible of the late Republic, the army had been a conscript force
recruited by the consuls ad hoc, allotted by the the Senate to those whose
provinciae required armies, and swearing an oath of obedience to each
commander set to lead them. The triumviral age had been the culmina-
tion of changes: nevertheless, it was the achievement of Augustus to
create a volunteer, professional army, its size determined by himself, ‘de-
politicize’ it,> and establish for it an ethos of loyalty to himself and the
‘divine family’. That result was not accomplished in a day. One of the
reasons why Augustus’ formal authority cannot be detached from his
actual power is that armies can only with difficulty and exceptionally be
recruited and held without a legitimate claim. Augustus was, in the first
years after 30 B.c., consul, and the provincia he was given from 27 B.c.
entitled him to overall command of the troops within it (which was most
of the troops, and their oath of obedience was necessarily to him).
Although for a time there continued to be independent proconsuls with
their own auspicia, they did not command enough forces to be a serious
counterpoise to those commanded by Augustus. Perhaps the crucial fact
in the whole story is that, in Augustus’ first decade, Roman citizens were
tired of civil war, which had brought no advantage to the ordinary
soldier; that generation mostly wanted peace and discharge, and would
not have been available for recruitment by a mere new pretender in a
struggle against Augustus for power. By the time that war-weariness had
worn off, he had succeeded in building a new army loyal to himself, and
could offer it enough reward to make service worth while.

But, though legitimacy is important, the most direct influence on
soldiers is that of their immediate commanding officers. It was those
people’s loyalty that Augustus needed to secure. The Republic had had
no professional officer class with a distinct ideology or solidarity:
commanding troops was something that every member of the governing
class must do, but none could or wished to do for more than sporadic
periods. Augustus, then, had no army lobby either to oppose him or to

3 Raaflaub 1980 (c 190).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

POWER 115

be coaxed into supporting him. His formal powers gave him the right to
choose his /egati for his provincia, which included most of the areas of
military activity, and the formally independent commands soon with-
ered away; beyond that, his ability to control who commanded the
armies remained simply a part of his general patronage of those who
sought high office in the state. So two things were needful to enable
Augustus to keep control of the army: he had to satisfy the aspirations of
the political class, and to be a reliable paymaster to the troops.

That consideration leads to the second ‘brute fact’ about the power of
Augustus, his overwhelming predominance in resources. The figures he
gives in the Res Gestae suffice to show that the resources he directly had
and personally controlled, from the start (once the Ptolemaic fortune
passed into his hands), made it inconceivable for any alternative
paymaster to arise, capable of supporting any notable army against him.
The imperium that he caused to be bestowed on himself supplied the
formal right to receive out of public revenue the cost of the major part of
the armies; but beyond that, though he did not need to mingle the state’s
revenues Officially with his private fortune, he took care to account for,
and budget in the light of, the whole resources of the state.

A third aspect of Augustus’ de facto power, and that which has received
most emphasis recently, is his role as the universal patron, the sole source
of benefits.4 Already in preparation for war upon Antony and Cleopatra
he had obtained from Italy and the provinces of the West an oath of
personal allegiance, which was to become a standard element in the
position of the ruler.5 For a time, recently, historians urged us to see it as
an oath of ‘clientship’ and describe Augustus as the universal patronus in
as formal a sense as a former owner was patronus of his freedmen. That
notion has been shown to have been too schematic,® and, besides, the
practical importance of the oath, beyond its original context, cannot be
judged. Nevertheless, patronage played a great role in the ruler’s
position, and its workings can be seen, already under Augustus, in
various spheres. The leading families of the Republic had cultivated
clientships all over the Roman world, especially in the East and in Spain
and Africa; and numerous documents of the triumviral period show the
‘dynasts’ of the civil wars using their clients as agents in the control of
cities and regions.’ ‘So-and-so, my friend’ (philos, amicus) might be the
key figure in a locality. And when there was only one ‘dynast’ left it was
his ‘friends’ around the world who kept cities and regions in line with his
wishes, and could expect rewards suchas the grant of Roman citizenship.
(One category of such supporters were the ‘client kings’,® who, even if

4 Saller 1982 (F 59) esp. ch. 2. 5 Herrmann 1968 {c 117). 6 Saller 1982 (F 59) 73-4.

7 Bowersock 1963 (Cc 39) ch. 3, and texts in Reynolds 1981 (B 270) nos. 10-12.
8 Braund 1984 (c 254).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

116 3. AUGUSTUS

originally Antony’s men, soon submitted to the patronage of the victor
of Actium.)

But how far the upper class of Rome as a whole depended for their
careers, henceforward, on the patronage of the ruler is, at least for
Augustus’ time, dificult to determine. It cannot be ascertained how
minutely he supervised entry into the mi/itiae that formed the base of
every public career. After those first steps, civil promotion depended, as
before, on election. We know that Augustus was prepared to promote
specific candidates openly by his own canvas and vote; and he could
grant the /atus clavus or see that a man did not lack the senatorial census. In
so far as he created new executive posts, such as the praetorian
prefectures, he nominated to them as he chose. But he did not have to
control the whole promotion system in painful detail. The Roman state
had never had high governmental or executive posts held for life or till
retirement: there were no Chancellorships or the like. Nor did Augustus
establish any such posts. The structure of public careers remained
sporadic and gentlemanly in character: offices were held on short
tenures, and none created any kind of fief. That was in one way an
advantage to the ruler, but it precluded him, even if he had wished
otherwise, from dominating areas of political life through the promotion
of his amici to permanencies.

Historians have, since the 1930s, very readily applied to this period the
notion of a dominant ‘Party’. Augustus began his career, certainly, as a
dux partium;, when he became sole ruler, we are told, it was through the
‘Party’ that he continued to dominate the political world, his biggest
problems, consequently, being those involved in holding the ‘Party’
together. That analysis is too closely based on the modern experience;
and as soon as one attempts to locate the alleged ‘Party’ one is confronted
with either too many people or too few. The obvious place to look is at
the ‘Friends of the Ruler’, amici principis (and renuntiatio amicitiae, such as
happened to Cornelius Gallus, is then described as ‘expulsion from the
Party’). But the amici principis are too broad a group, for although
Augustus’ few close collaborators were, of course, amici principis, that
category could also include jurists, philosophers, doctors and poets; in
fact, it is hard to say where amicitia ended and clientela began. And if we
include Augustus’ well-wishers in the cities of the empire, we are soon in
danger of ascribing to the ‘Party’ more or less everyone who is not
known to have been an opponent of the regime — at which point the
concept ceases to be helpful. Neither is any structural organization to be
seen such as is nowadays associated with the idea of a ‘Party’, or would
have held Augustus’ adherents in the Roman world together politically.
Of his handful of close associates, and how he bound them to him, there

9 The most cogent account in terms of ‘Party’ is Béranger 1959 (c 27).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUTHORITY 117

will be more to say later; it is not at a ‘Party’ that we shall be looking, but
at a dynastic network.

The fact that one finds it impossible not to speak of Augustus ‘doing’
this or ‘deciding’ that or ‘establishing’ the other is a reflection of blunt
reality. It was he who decided what campaigns should be waged and
when, and by armies of what size. As overall commanders of the main
enterprises he appointed whom he chose. He decided policy towards
Parthia, and the disposal of Judaea (though in that case we have in
Josephus a window through which to watch him taking public advice).!°
It was he who settled, not who should be consuls, but, much more
importantly, how many consuls and praetors there should be each year,
and from what minimum ages men might hold office. The ¢ampaign to
legislate for morality was his campaign. And as he took over functions,
such as responsibility for food supply, security and fire-fighting in the
capital, so his executive hold grew on more and more aspects of public
life. Of power, that is to say of initiative and its important counterpart,
the power to prevent things being done, Augustus held the essential
reins from the beginning, and the rest he took over.

Il, AUTHORITY

So the whole Roman world had a single ruler. The Greek-speaking part
of that world , used to rulers and their ideology, saw no complications.
By the time of, let us say, Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius, the ruler’s total
power was equally taken for granted in Rome, Italy and the West, and
descriptions and justifications of it in Roman terms were available
without embarrassment or hesitation. It was due to Augustus that that
came to be so, because he combined a conservative cast of mind, and a
vision of himself as restorer of Rome’s erstwhile greatness and stability,
with the ruthless determination to turn his power into a transmissible
system. The descriptions and justifications of the power of the Roman
ruler run, for that reason, on two parallel tracks: conformity to mos
matorum and creation of ‘charisma’.

It was suggested in chapter 2 above that accounts of the traditional
elements in Augustus’ position in terms of a ‘hoax’, a ‘cloak’, or a
‘veneer’, masking ‘brute power’, though common, are seriously inade-
quate. The better concept is ‘legitimization’: ‘political power and
legitimacy rest not only in taxes and armies, but also in the perceptions
and beliefs of men’.!!

The narrative in chapter 2 showed how the main constitutional
elements of the imperial system, imperium proconsulare maius and tribunicia

10 Joseph. BJ u. 25 and 81: AJ xvit.229 and 301; Crook 1955 (D 10) 32.
"Hopkins 1978 (A 45) 198.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

118 3. AUGUSTUS

potestas, arose as solutions to particular political situations rather than
out of any global vision. What is more, by no means every element of the
eventual system was in place by Augustus’ death: some of the cogs were
added by his successors, and some of what were, during all his time, still
experiments, hardened into fixity under his successors. Whether the
inventive brain was that of Augustus alone, we cannot be sure. It is
possible that the conventions of ancient historiography, aggravated by
the self-advertising genius of Augustus, may have caused the suppres-
sion from the record of people whose ideas and influences helped to
create the imperial system. But little can be done to put that record
straight. A final preliminary is to observe that one may judge the product
to have been a remarkable achievement without, necessarily, admiring it
wholeheartedly.

The Roman Republic — to repeat — had had, by tradition and
convention, multiple points of decision-making: votes of the comitia,
resolutions of the Senate, edicts of magistrates, interventions of tri-
bunes, verdicts of criminal juries, sententiae of lay judges in the civil
courts. The most fundamental long-term political trend of the imperial
age of Roman history is the dwindling of that multiplicity until decision-
making was, by formal rule even, in the hands of the emperor or of those
to whom he might delegate authority. When it is asked how far
Augustus carried Rome along that path — the path to ‘the emperor is
dispensed from the laws’ and ‘what is pleasing to the emperor has the
force of statute’ — two contrasting answers are given by historians, and
debate is not over.

One answer was implied in the narrative of chapter 2, where Augustus
was described as keeping, and brilliantly utilizing, the old republican
unwritten ‘rule-book’ and its well-tried terminology, and rejecting
offers of powers formally inconsistent with that; but modern scholarship
has repeatedly emphasized that there appear to exist a whole set of
counterfactuals to that picture, which would lead to the view that, in
fully formal terms, Augustus’ constitutional position was quite differ-
ent, and quite revolutionary. One source, above all, poses the problem:
the so called /ex de imperio Vespasiani, the surviving second bronze tablet
of an inscription on which were set out the constitutional powers
conferred on the emperor Vespasian.!2 The sixth surviving clause reads:
‘...and that, whatever he judges to be in accordance with the interest of
the state and the solemnity (maiestas) of divine and human and public
and private affairs, he shall have the right and power to do and perform,
as the divine Augustus, and Tiberius Iulius Caesar Augustus, and
Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, had’. If that sentence
be taken at its face value, the consequences for the picture so far given of

12 EJ? 364; Brunt 1977 (Cc 335).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUTHORITY 119

Augustus’ formal position are devastating, for in that event it must be
admitted that he had, all the time, in the most formal sense,!3 total
constitutional power. That conclusion is particularly welcome to legal
historians, as an explanation of how it was that Augustus seems to have
been accepted as the head of the legal order, which no concatenation of
executive or initiative powers (which is what imperium and tribunicia
potestas were) could have achieved. Numerous further pieces can be
fitted into the picture, especially the remark in Gaius’ Institutes’ that‘...
it has never been doubted that it [a decision by the emperor, constitutio
principis| has the force of statute’, and the statement in Suetonius’ Life of
Caligula that Caligula received en bloc, at his accession, the ‘right and
arbitrament of all matters’.!5 Strabo’s claim that Augustus had the
arbitrament of peace and war'® is another item for the dossier. And
scholars have found, in phrases from the sources here and there, possible
titles for the supremacy Augustus is supposed to have received — ‘care of
the res publica’, ‘headship of the common weal’, ‘Principate’, or just
imperium.

Augustus told the world how he wished it to think about this in the
Res Gestae. Minimizing his formal powers, and insisting on his rejection
of powers contrary to mos maiorum, he asserted that what he predomi-
nated in was auctoritas,"’ the predicate of ‘being accepted as a top person’
that the ‘chief men’ (principes viri) of the Republic had been said to
possess, by which the things he commanded were done simply because it
was he who commanded them. Some historians have tried to show that
unofficial auctoritas was turned — by some step that has eluded us — into an
official power of legislation, or that it replaced imperium as the formal
statement of total power, or that by an edict of 28 B.c. Augustus received
a formal ‘Principate’ that carried all else with it.'8

There is no compatibility between the two pictures, and no com-
promise will accommodate both; it is necessary to choose. The choice
made in chapter 2 and in the present account, of the more old-fashioned,
‘minimalist’? — and at present heterodox — picture of the “Augustan
constitution’ imposes some immediate caveats and clarifications. First,
to repeat: neither picture is an account of de facto power; both are
accounts of descriptions, justifications, legitimizations, of power. To
choose the first is not, therefore, to imply that Augustus finished up any
the less the de facto ruler of Rome; it is to say that he and his contempor-
aries clothed his rule in concepts that were not yet of the monolithically
monarchical kind familiar to the Severan emperors and their contempor-

13 Iusand potestas. 4 Gai. Inst. 1. 5. 15 Suet. Calig. 14.1. 16 Strab. xvit.3.25 (8q0C).

17 The Greek is dftopa. The Latin word that stood in that place was not known until discovery
of the Antioch-in-Pisidia copy of the RG (published 1927), and Mommsen’s guess was dignitas.

18 Respectively, Magdelain 1947 (c 167); Grant 1946 (B 322); Grenade 1961 (c 103).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

120 3. AUGUSTUS

aries two hundred years later. Secondly it imposes the duty to offer an
alternative account of at least three texts, but especially of the sixth clause
of the sex de imperio Vespasiani, the so-called ‘discretionary clause’.!°

The difficulty about believing that clause to mean, baldly, what it
seems to imply — that is, that Augustus already had total, formal power to
act at will — is that it would have made otiose the whole of the rest of the
document, including the grants of the major specific powers that
presumably occupied the missing first tablet. Proper significance needs,
instead, to be given to its position in the list of regulations: it belongs toa
closing group, in which the seventh clause grants the new ruler
exemption from certain statutes and the eighth validates retrospectively
his actions before becoming ruler. That position establishes for the sixth
clause its natural and appropriate role as a grant of residual emergency
powers.” It is, in any case, erroneous to invoke the ‘discretionary clause’
as a prop for the ruler’s legislative authority, for it gives him power to do
things, whereas legislation is only in a truistic sense the ‘doing’ of things:
it is the creation of rules, an altogether broader activity.

Gaius, writing an elementary law-book in the second century A.D.,
sounds uncomfortable in his protestation (if it is his) that ‘no one has
doubted’ that a constitutio principis has the force of statute. Such was
certainly correct doctrine in his own day, and perhaps we should simply
infer from his embarrassment that he knew that earlier constitutional
statements had not taken that form. But Gaius’ passage is in a more
parlous state still, for it continues by giving a reason for the principle that
aconstitutio principis has the force of statute which is deficient in logic: ‘...
because the emperor receives his imperium by statute’. The non sequitur is
so blatant as to cast doubt whether Gaius could have penned such an
absurdity. It bears, too, the marks of an unintelligent echo of Ulpian’s
account, quoted in Justinian’s Digest, of what is there called the ‘royal
law’, leo regia;?! it is in all probability an intrusion into the real text of
Gaius, which will simply have stated the rule about imperial pronounce-
ments that prevailed in his day.

The third text is that of Strabo. He was a contemporary and a serious
author; but his assertion that Augustus received ‘headship of the
hegemony’ and ‘the power of war and peace for life’ comes at the end of
his Geography. That is not a work of legal science, and he is not making a
constitutional statement. (He is, in fact, detailing the division of the
provinces into ‘people’s provinces’ and ‘Caesar’s provinces’; and that

19 The view here argued for is mentioned, but dismissed, by Brunt 1977 (C 335) 113.

2 For my negative argument, see Jolowicz and Nicholas 1972 (F 660) 365-6; for my positive
argument, see Hammond 1959 (A 43) 306, n. 59; de Martino 1974 (A 58) fasc. 1, 501-2.

21 Dig. 1.4.1 pr., Ulpian, 1 Inst.: ‘Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem: utpote cum lege regia,
quae de imperio eius lata est, populus ci et in eum omne suum imperium et potestatem conferat.’

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUTHORITY 121

was actually accomplished not by virtue of any great overriding power
of Augustus, but, in all probability, in a senatorial debate.)

The case, then, for Augustus having been granted a formal ‘consti-
tutional monarchy’ does not prevail over the account, derived from Dio
and elsewhere, of his receiving at different stages a concatenation of
particular powers; and when Dio himself says that it was from the
beginning ‘unalloyed monarchy’ he is not giving a description but
making a comment.

In any case, there is still more to be said about the constitutional forms
in which the ruler’s power was expressed. They interacted with the
‘brute realities’ by creating boundaries of normal conduct: the clothing
helped to define the role. And the separate powers had a further
usefulness: they could be applied piecemeal in the gradual promotion of
the ruler’s principal collaborator to the position of collega imperii. The
pedantic precision of their use in that way can be observed in the papyrus
fragment of a Greek translation of Augustus’ funeral laudation of
Agrippa: ‘... tribunician power for five years in 18 B.c. on the basis of a
senatus consultum, and again in 13 B.c., plus, in a statute, that no man’s
authority should be greater than yours in any province to which the
public weal of Rome might hale you’.”4 That careful formulation helps to
corroborate the case that has been argued here, that the ruler’s own
powers were described in terms of a concatenation rather than by some
global formula.

Auctoritas is the aspect of the forms (in the sense that it could be given
a name and is appealed to in the Res Gestae) that lay closest to the
actuality. It was personal to the individual ruler, and if he lacked or lost it
his rule was in peril. He possessed it partly by force of personality, partly
by the ‘brute fact’ that he held the reins of power; yet at the same time it
was by possessing auctoritas that he held those reins, for, insofar as he
possessed it, he had only to command to be obeyed. Inscriptions
recording that things were done ‘by order of Augustus’, iussu Augusti,2
ought not to cause perplexity: they are the reflection of auctoritas, for the
people concerned were content to state that they had done things
because Augustus told them to. Auxctoritas was, furthermore, the link
between the conformity to mos maiorum (for it had been predicated of
republican principes viri) and the creation of ‘charisma’ (because it was
predicated of the ruler as an individual): it could pave the way for the
insertion of the ruler’s personality in the permanent, extra-constitutional
consciousness of the people.

But legal historians are quite right, that it is above all for the ruler’s
role as an issuer of norms, regulations to be obeyed generally and for the
future, that we need to seek the constitutional basis, because that role is

2 Lacey 1974(c 146). = Diout11. 2% EJ? 366. 5 EJ? 283; 368.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

122 3. AUGUSTUS

not explicable in terms of the ‘blunt realities’ of power. Augustus’ word,
though it was as well to obey it in the instant case, did not ‘have the force
of statute’. He was offered, as a special grant, the right to make /eges
Augustae, but turned it down; instead he put bills before the comitia by
virtue of his tribunician power, and they became /eges Infiae.26 He could
summon and put motions to the Senate, but the resulting decisions were
senatus consulta.2? His edicts would lapse unless validated, at least tacitly,
by his successors (though is was probably not doubted that they would
be).28 The responsa prudentium, ‘opinions of the jurists’ (the jurists of the
late Republic had sought normative status for their responsa,2? which
came, in the imperial period, to count as an official source of law)
continued to depend on the aactoritas of the individual jurist. Augustus,
besides himself giving some responsa,» is said to have ‘decided that they
[the jurists] should give their opinions ex auctoritate eius’3' There are
reasons for being extremely unsure what exactly that meant or what
resulted from it. Some scholars see it as a takeover by the ruler of the
interpretation of the law, which is very implausible; others think it just
gave certain favoured jurists a status somewhat like that of English
Queen’s Counsel. In any case, what supported the privilege was not
imperium or potestas, but, properly, auctoritas, Augustus’ auctoritas supple-
menting, as it were, that of the particular jurist.

The ruler in the imperial period had the role, also, of supreme and
ultimate judge. In the Republic there had been no supreme judge or
court of the Roman state, and decisions both of the criminal and of the
civil courts were inappellable. So it has again to be asked what part
Augustus played in that important development, and by what consti-
tutional authority. Under him the civil courts continued to function in
the standard way, and so did the criminal quaestiones, with, even, an
addition, the adultery court; and for the organization of them all the
important pair of statutes de indiciis was passed.>? But besides that, there
existed already judicial appeal to the ruler as a supreme court and
jurisdiction by the ruler at first instance, in the form of pure cognitio: there
is not much evidence, and it is anecdotal at that, but historians mostly,
and rightly, accept that at least tentative beginnings can be perceived
under Augustus.33 Attempts to derive that exfra ordinem jurisdiction of

26 And after the one great burst of ‘Julian Laws’ there are very few certain cases of even those.

27 Not until the second century a.p. was the oratio principis in the Senate treated as per se
normative.

28 For normative-looking edicts of Augustus see EJ? 282, and, in the law, Dig. 16.1.2 pr. and
28.2.26. 2 Frier 1985 (F 632) 186-7.

30 E.g. Dig. 23.2.14.4. See also the new fideicommissary jurisdiction, Inst. Just. 1.25 pr. and
23.1. 31 Pomponius at Dig. 1.2.2.49. On ixs respondendi see, especially, Wieacker 1985 (F 706).

32 Essential still: Girard 1913 (F 653). On the decwriae, see Bringmann 1973 (D 249) 235—42.

33 Suet. Aug. 33; Val. Max. vit.7.3-4; Dio Lv.7.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACHIEVEMENT 123

Augustus from republican precedents and his traditional constitutional
powers» all fail, at least in part, however hard scholars press into service
the early grants of ‘judging when called upon’ and the ‘vote of Athena’ ,35
or seek to extract a judicial power from his proconsular imperium or — for
those who believe in its existence — his consular pofestas. It seems
necessary to posit some formal legislative basis for Augustus’ jurisdic-
tion; and as that is unlikely to have been a statute of which no hint
survives in the sources, a reasonable guess, in a situation of admitted
uncertainty, is that something may have been contained in the /eges de
iudiciis. Be that as it may, the emergence of the ruler as supreme judge and
head of the legal order is the principal formal difference between the
Republic and the Empire.

Ill. ACHIEVEMENT

1. Governing class

However one may qualify or re-phrase, the late Republic was running
into an imbalance between the growing scale of its responsibilities as a
world power and the organization needed to meet them,* and, with
further growth of empire, some initiatives would have had to be taken,
though they did not need to be massive or revolutionary. The organs of
government of the Roman empire are treated in various chapters below,
but we must here consider what part Augustus played in their
development.

To call the Senate an ‘organ of government’ brings out vividly the
change it had to undergo, for it had been, not an ‘organ’, but the
government itself. To an extent, that continued to be so.37 There was no
‘dyarchy’: just as Augustus’ imperium matus entitled him to determine
things all over the empire, so senatus consulta could be of universal
application. And the Senate gained (like Augustus) one completely new
role, as a court of law.38 Nor need it be doubted that Augustus’ repeated
efforts to reduce the size and purify the social composition of the Senate
were motivated by his desire for that body to retain a responsible role in
public affairs. The sub-committee he set up to prepare senatorial business
with him will have improved, not diminished, the chance of the Senate to
maintain a hold on serious matters of state, as well as for the ruler to
propose initiatives and gauge reactions.*? As individuals, the senators
remained the holders of virtually all the top offices of state — in principle,

* The principal attempt is that of Jones 1960 (A 47) ch. 5.

35 Dio L1.19.7; and see ch. 2 above, p. 74. % Though contra, Eck 1986 (c 82).

37 Brunt 1984 (D 27). 38 Ov. Tr. 1.131-2; Dio Lv. 34.2; and see ch. 12 below, pp. 408-9.
* Crook 1955 (D 10) 9-10.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

124 3. AUGUSTUS

all home magistracies, all legionary legateships and all governorships of
provinces, save for the one major exception, Egypt, and a few minor
ones. (Nor was Egypt any harbinger of change: no further major
province, nor any other legionary command, became equestrian till
Severan times.) Senators also retained charge of the state treasury, and
supplied, exclusively, the personnel of a number of new administrative
committees: praefecti frumenti dandi from 22 8.C.; curatores viarum from 20
B.C., curatores aquarum from 11 B.C.; praefecti aerarii militaris from A.D. 6;
curatores operum publicorum (not datable); curatores frument® for acquiring
grain in A.D. 6 and 7; the consular commission on expenditure, A.D. 6; the
consular committee to take over embassies, from a.D. 8. The consuls
were also charged with a new jurisdiction over fideicommissa, testamen-
tary trusts. Finally, experimental but with a future of high prestige, there
was the prefecture of the city.

An important advance on tradition, however, was that Augustus
created in the senatorial order something closer toa hereditary peerage.*!
Suetonius informs us that Augustus permitted the sons of senators to
wear the ‘broad stripe’, /atus clavus,*2 and Dio that in 18 B.c. he imposed a
minimum property qualification upon candidates for office, which
settled at 250,000 drachmas — a million sesterces. Dio states, indeed, that
Augustus’ original minimum was 100,000 drachmas (400,000 sesterces),
but that was just the ‘equestrian’ rating that everybody had to have to
serve as an officer, the necessary preliminary to all political office. So 18
B.C. should date the inception of a specifically senatorial census.43 Sons of
senators could, henceforward, automatically stand for the offices that —
still, alone ~ gave entrance to the order. Suetonius does not say that
others could only do so as a beneficium of the ruler, thus giving’ him sole
control over access to the order, but the power may have been employed
to keep out ‘gatecrashers’.“ As for the property qualification, the figure
was presumably chosen with an eye to getting a senatorial order of the
desired size, for there were plenty of people — and not only senators —
much richer than the minimum.

But Augustus’ struggle was uphill, because he could not bring himself
to accept the inevitability ofapathy. To put it ina homely form, if you say
to people ‘I am the ruler, but please, everybody, carry on exactly as
usual’, they won’t. The honorific and social position was still a goal, and
legionary and provincial commands were still sought after, but the
requirement of residence to attend formal meetings was thought a

Dio Lv.26.2; 31.4.

41 Nicolet 1976 (D 5 3); Chastagnol 1973 (D 31) and 1975 (D 33). Both Mommsen and Willems had,
in their day, pointed this out.

42 Suet. Ag. 38.2; Suetonius does not necessarily imply that (for example, owing to a ‘crisis of

recruitment’) they were forced to enter the Senate.
43 Dio tiv.17.3; Suet. Axg. 41.1, with Carter’s note. * As in 36 B.c., Dio xLIx.16.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACHIEVEMENT 125

nuisance. Hence the changes that had to be made in the rules of senatorial
procedure.45 The ‘acts of the Senate’ ceased to be published,“ and it is
possible that that was intended actually to encourage freedom of oral
debate; but principally the changes were by way of securing proper levels
of attendance:*7 increased fines for absence, fixing of regular sessions of
the Senate fortnightly on specified days, and — in capitulation, really —
lowering of the quorum needed to pass valid senatus consulta.

Recently, in line with the general theme of ‘opting out’ whose
repercussions on the ‘divine family’ were seen in chapter 2 above,
historians have discerned a ‘crisis of recruitment’ in the governing class,
especially in the Senate. In 13 B.c. the Senate itself, in Augustus’ absence,
alarmed at the situation, appointed men from the equestrian order to the
lowest set of senatorial posts, the ‘vigintivirate’ (allowing them to
remain equites), and obliged ex-quaestors over forty to draw lots for the
tribunate; and on his return Augustus compelled some people with the
requisite census to enter the Senate. In the following year there was again a
shortage for the tribunate, and equites were forced into it, with a choice, at
the end, which order to stay in. In a.D. 5 (and often, says Dio) people
were unwilling to be aediles, and compulsion was used. Suetonius
alleges that the additional decuria was necessitated by avoidance of jury-
service, and Dio records the difficulty of getting people to offer their
daughters as Vestal Virgins.*® We can, then, agree as to the phenome-
non, provided that a careful distinction be made. For the people at the
lower end of the elite group, the sort who in the Republic would not
have got beyond quaestorian rank and would have remained senatores
pedarii, in the new dispensation the rank was not worth the trouble and
expenditure. But the top was unaffected; praetorships and consulships
were still sought after and fought over, hence Augustus’ need to pass a
lex de ambita and make a rule, in 8 B.c., requiring deposits from
candidates for office.49 In 23 B.c. he had declared that only ten praetors
were needed annually, and the figure was kept at that for a few years; but
there was pressure, and they were restored to twelve. And in A.D. 11,
there being sixteen candidates, all were let in.5° As for the consulship,
both its relinquishment by Augustus from 23 B.c. and the introduction
of a second pair each year, which was regular from 5 B.c., must be seen as
a response to the number of men eagerly surging up through the system
and wanting the social reward: the age at which nobiles might reach the
consulship was actually lowered.5! So it is no wonder that in the
Augustan marriage-laws one of the privileges achieved by the possession
of children was priority in the candidature for office.

45 Talbert 1984 (D 77) 222-4, following Rotondi, posits a /ex Iwlia de senatu babendo of 9 B.C.

# Suet. Ang. 36.1. 47 Dio tiv.18.3 and 35.1; Lv.3. 48 Suet. Aug. 32; Dio Lv.22.5.
49 Dio tv.5.3. % Dio Lvt.23.4. 51 Syme 1986 (a 95) 51-3

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

126 3. AUGUSTUS

The election to magistracies was plainly not intended by Augustus to
go simply by his fiat. There was insistence on giving people the vote, as
in the arrangements for the decurions of the twenty-eight Italian co/oniae
to have a kind of ‘postal vote’;52 and Agrippa’s new Saepta and
Diribitorium must have been intended and used for actual voting and
vote-counting, even if also for exhibitions. That might not be very
significant: by Pliny’s time, elections by the people in the Campus,
though they still happened, were just a piece of pageantry. But to the
extent to which, in Augustus’ day, the ruler still needed to influence
them, that state had not yet arrived. We are told how he gave presents to
his own tribes and canvassed personally for his preferred candidates.*3
One of his privileges was that of ‘commendation’ of candidates for the
higher offices, who were then ‘candidates of Caesar’ and automatically
elected: Augustus seems to have used it sparingly, and not at all (as far as
we know) for the consulship. He did not ‘give’ consulships to people,
though we have seen in chapter 2 how he caused special arrangements to
be made for the young hopefuls of the ‘divine family’. Dio asserts that
Augustus often chose the urban praetor himself>4 (not, it appears, the
peregrine praetor, who shared the civil jurisdiction, which shows that
this is nothing to do witha ‘grip on the law’); doubtless what that means
is that he decided which of the annually elected praetors should have the
hierarchically senior position.55 As for governors of provinces, those of
Augustus’ own provincia were, properly, his to choose: it was an immense
hold on promotion to the really significant jobs. The proconsulships of
the ‘provinces of the Roman people’, were, in principle, still determined
by the lot. Some scholars are minded to show that they were somehow
picked with an eye to particular talent or suitability or experience.*6 The
attempt results in very little, but some manipulation of the lot is
plausible, for ensuring, for example, that Africa got a soldier when
needed, and we know that the lot was abandoned in at least one period of
emergency.

In any case, it is a merit of recent scholarship to have pointed out that,
in the Empire just as in the Republic, public responsibilities were not
specialized (not even, by and large, the military ones, for every
gentleman had to do some soldiering). Provided candidates seemed loyal
and ordinarily competent, it did not greatly matter who received which
office, and there was little need to gerrymander the system in detail,
except, perhaps, negatively, to exclude men not competent enough — or
too competent. The great, overriding campaign commands were just
put, unashamedly, in the hands of members of the ‘divine family’;

52 Suet. Ag. 46; cf. EJ? 301 II, 2. 53 Suet. Aug. 40.2; 56.1. + Dio um. 2.3.

55 People who became collegae imperii seem to have held, as praetors, the urban practorship.
5 Szramkiewicz 1975—6 (D 75).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACHIEVEMENT 127

otherwise, the important criteria were, really, social, and it is best to view
the whole as an honours system, positions of distinction graded in a
traditional ladder up which the socially ambitious could move. Its other
importance was as a ‘brokerage’ system in the distribution of the ruler’s
beneficia, because it was those who rose in the order whose recommenda-
tions carried weight, and who could obtain favours for the people or
cities who were their clientes.57

The only other ‘order’ that mattered was that of the eguites, and to
them Augustus looked for some administrative personnel, without
whom he would have had to expand the traditional magistracies and so
dilute the senatorial créme de /a créme. The wealthy class of newly united
Italy was ready to be brought into the scheme of things. We have learnt
better, however, than to see Augustus as ‘inventing the Roman civil
service’ or harnessing to his regime the skills of a ‘business class’. He
used individuals of different kinds and skills and backgrounds, and did
not create for them a cursus honorum in imitation of that of the senators:
that was a later development. He did take steps to give the order a
stronger collective image, with a formal ‘entrance examination’ and an
annual equestrian parade, and, when Gaius and Lucius Caesar were old
enough, making them its honorary presidents. From the funeral honours
for Germanicus*® we learn of a Lex Valeria Cornelia of a.p. 5, by whicha
new electoral committee of senators and select equites was interposed
between candidature for office and the comitia, choosing a list of persons
destinati, to be added, probably, to any commendati, to be put before the
assembly of the people. It was allowed for that there might still be more
candidates presenting themselves independently, but maybe from then
on the assembly was virtually a rubber stamp. The significance of the
new committee has been variously assessed; one view is that it had a
political purpose, to encourage, by allowing some eguites a say in the
process, the rise to office of ‘new men’ favourable to Tiberius. But the
more sober, and now prevailing, view is that it was an ‘honour’, a further
special mark of distinction for the equestrian order.%?

When it came to the offices opened to the equites, there was, in
Augustus’ conception, no ‘ladder’. The order maintained, in any case,
its traditional role as a principal source for the manning of the standard
jury-courts and the filling of junior army officerships. The most
significant of the new functions were for experienced military equstes: the
prefectures of small provinces and of the naval squadrons, and the census

57 Saller 1982 (F $9) 94~111 and 73-8.

58 The rogatio Valeria Aurelia of A.D. 19. Sources: Tabula Hebana, EJ? 94a; Tabula Siarensis, J.
Gonzalez 1984 (B 234); Rome fragment, CIL v1 31199; perhaps also the Tabula Ilicitana, EJ? g4b (or
the latter may come from similar honours for Drusus in A.D. 23). 3 Brunt 1961 (c 47).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

128 3. AUGUSTUS

officerships in the provinces. Above all, of course, stood the prefecture
of Egypt and Alexandria itself. The first three prefects performed
important military tasks; quite a number of other prefects are known by
name from Augustus’ reign, but we hear little of their activities, they had
short terms of office, and they were socially not of high consequence.®!
Equites were also employed in new procuratorial, that is financial, offices
(though such offices might go to freedmen, such as the notorious Julius
Licinus).°? The equestrian offices in the capital arose only relatively late,
in the process of experimentation: the two praetorian prefects first in 2
B.C., the praefectus vigilum in A.D. 6, the praefectus annonae not before A.D.
7.65 The stimulus may not have been so much growing confidence in the
equestrians as dissatisfaction with experiments using senatorial
committees.®
In the imperial period there is a civil service, purely executive, staffed
by ‘slaves of Caesar’ and ‘freedmen of Augustus’ (until its headships
begin to go to equites, and then we really are in a different world). There
are, especially, a number of central posts occupied by freedmen, the
secretaryships of correspondence, accounts, and petitions being the
principal: and for a period in the first century A.D. holders of some of
those posts had powerful personal influence on the rulers. Augustus’
part in initiating the system is hard to estimate because of shortage of
evidence, but historians, probably rightly, tend to conclude from that
shortage that the beginnings, under him, were slight and unsystematic.
To his last instructions, leaving behind a military and financial handbook
to the empire, he ‘appended also the names of the freedmen and slaves
who could be called to account’,®5 which suggests a precursor of the
Department of Accounts; but the floodtide of correspondence was yet to
come,® and the regular answering of, at any rate, legal petitions a later
development. Certainly, there is no sign of any such persons having
political influence on Augustus. Naturally, there was also a large
personnel, greater than, though not different in kind from, that of the
republican principes viri, of household servants, and with the rise of a
‘court’ (to which we shall come) it was destined to become very large
indeed. But Augustus treated his servants sternly,®’ and no sign is yet to
be detected of the influence of chamberlains or the like, let alone of the
tuler’s inaccessibility behind layers of personnel.
Our focus has shifted fromthe way Augustus secured the personnel he

needed to the extent of their influence upon him. The ‘Party’ has been

61 Brunt 1975 (E906). 6? Dio Liv. 21.3-8.

6 Je is likely that the praefectus vebiculorum also goes back to Augustus, though not yet
epigtaphically attested so early: Suet. Aug. 49.3.

Eck 1985 (c 82). 65 Suet. Aug. 101.4.

% Though for a trace of a precursor of ab epistulis see Suet. Aug. 67.2, with Kienast 1982 (c 136)
262. 87 Suet. Aug. 67; 74.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACHIEVEMENT 129

adduced, and the amici principis were his obvious channel of advice; but it
is practically impossible to attribute any particular action to the influence
of a specific individual, except in a few cases of personal patronage.
Crucially lacking, of course, are the files, letters, memoirs and diaries
from which historians of the modern age extract such information. In
accordance with mos maiorum, Augustus brought in persons of standing,
of his choice, when public decisions had to be seen to be made; they can
be observed, listed hierarchically, in the minutes of formal meetings.® It
is also quite certain that Augustus used amici of his choice, according to
their talents and the matter in hand, as his informal consi/ium, summoned
according to need.®° Doubtless they did exercise influence; someone
must have been involved, for example, in the orchestration of the
imperial symbolism (a subject to which we shall come). Doubtless, too,
the senatorial probouleutic sub-committee was not always on the mere
receiving end. But that is all that can be said.” There were éminences grises:
Maecenas and Sallustius Crispus were sources of confidential infor-
mation and privy to secret plans, and people, no doubt rightly, believed
that they could get what they wanted;”! but we do not actually know
what items of policy sprang from their brains.’ Livia Drusilla, always at
her husband’s side, may have had the greatest influence of all; in her case,
the less people knew, the more — and worse — they guessed. Prosopogra-
phy has, to be sure, given vivid life to a number of powerful personalities
of the age whom we may well guess to have been immensely influential:
M. Lepidus, M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus, L. Calpurnius Piso, consul
of 15 B.c., Cn, Cornelius Lentulus, consul of 14 B.c., Paullus Fabius
Maximus, consul of 11 B.c., and plenty of others. But the most
characteristic means whereby Augustus obtained the co-operation of,
and promoted to high responsibilities, the people of his choice, was their
incorporation in the ramifications of the ‘divine family’.’> Complex
family alliances were not in the least contrary to tradition, but when such
an alliance revolved round just one princeps vir instead of many, the
quantitative change became qualitative, and an imperial court was in the
making. To the ideological aspects of the ‘divine family’ we shall return;
its practical aspect was that the greatest commands and the most
spectacular diplomatic missions went — and were held for as long as the
ruler thought necessary — to the closest members of his family and then,
as it were, spread outwards. It is likely that, insofar as they were
experienced enough, those men were also Augustus’ principal counsel-

6 Ef? 379, lines 34-40. % Crook 1955 (D 10) ch. 3.

® Policy about codicils was suggested by the jurist Trebatius Testa, Inst. Just. 11. 25.
" Hor. Sat. 1.9.43—56; 11.6.38-58.

7 Crispus may have been solely responsible for the elimination of Agrippa Postumus.
% For the process, and the people, see Syme 1986 (A 95).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

130 3. AUGUSTUS

lors and collaborators; hence the political tragedy of Augustus’ unwil-
lingness to trust Tiberius and Tiberius’ withdrawal from collaboration
with Augustus.

2. Policy

What, with hindsight, historians analyse as Roman ‘policy’ was often,
simply, the Roman government’s pragmatic reaction to situations. (The
‘spread of citizenship’, with the founding of new coloniae, is, as far as
Augustus is concerned, a case in point, because veterans had to be settled
somewhere.) There are, nonetheless, one or two areas in which it is
proper to speak of, and needful briefly to review, Augustus’ ‘policy’. He
had a military and imperial policy: that is assessed in chapter 4 below. He
had a financial and budgetary policy and a social and demographic
policy. He also had an ideology, the most important part of the whole
story.

A degree of financial policy and initiative greater than that of the
Republic was forced upon Augustus by the need for a permanent
military budget. What was needed was relatively exact housekeeping —
and the Res Gestae was evidently composed by someone who relished
exact figures. A ‘statement of accounts’ of the empire, such as was left by
Augustus to his successor, had already been available to be handed to his
fellow-consul in 23 B.c., when he thought he was dying.”4 The general
basis of taxation from the republican time was not seriously changed,
except for the introduction, quite late on, of the estate duty, vicesima
hereditatium, to feed the new account for meeting army discharge
gratuities. However, a full property and poll census of the provinces was
put in hand, gradually and over many years; it was imposed particularly
on newly acquired regions, where it was regarded as the principal sign of
subjection and was a major cause of unrest. Besides army pay, another
costly item was the supply of free corn at Rome (though much of the
taxation for that came in in kind). Augustus did not invent the policy of
‘bread and circuses’; in fact, probably after the great food panic of a.D. 6,
he was minded to abolish the framentatio (his motive being not economic
but social, namely the very conservative belief that free corn at Rome
lured citizens away from the admirable activity of peasant farming). But
he concluded that abolition was politically inexpedient.7> The main
economic fact, however, that determined policy was the enormous, and
ever-growing, wealth of the ruler himself; the patrimonium could serve as
an alternative treasury, andenabled Augustus to practise a kind of deficit
financing on the main accounts, with himself making up the shortfall
from his private fortune. Chapters 15 to 18 of the Res Gestae tell the story:

7 Dio Litt.30.2. 75 Suet. Aug. 42.3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACHIEVEMENT 131

‘... four times I helped the state treasury with my money’; “... from the
year of the Lentuli [18 B.c.], when the public revenues were insufficient, I
gave subventions of corn and cash from my own granary and bank to
sometimes 100,000 people and sometimes many more’. The ruler thus
imposed on himself, as the richest citizen, a kind of super-liturgy, which
enabled him — as the ancient liturgical principle always enabled the payer
- to take on the role of super-benefactor.’6

Except for that part of the taxation of the provinces that was paid in
kind, the Roman empire had a money economy. In particular, the armies
were paid in cash, and so were the principal officials. Governors of
provinces received large salaries (which was an important innovation of
Augustus),’7 and equestrian officialdom was from the start a salaried
service. As in every respect, so in that of coinage the Roman imperial
system relied on the continuance of local government and practice, and
so the cities of the Roman world went on issuing, for everyday use, their
own, mostly bronze, coinages. The gold and, above all, the silver
coinages, for major payments, passed into the control of Rome, the ruler.
Numismatists tell us that under Augustus there came into being a ‘world
coinage’. There was less of policy about that than just the way things
worked out (and the only actual Augustan change in the currency system
was, surprisingly, in the non-precious metal currency of Rome, which
became bimetallic):”8 huge coinages had been issued in the triumviral
period, to pay the rival armies, so there was much in circulation; the
government opened and closed mints at different times and places, as and
when the need was perceived for specific quantities of new coin. The
total production was, undeniably, enormous.’

The aspect of Augustus’ activity, however, that most plainly deserves
the name of ‘policy’ is that which is commonly called his ‘social policy’,
since it evidently sprang from passionate personal concern: he doggedly
fought his own elite over it. The impression given by much recent
writing is that Augustus was both revolutionary, in trying to mould the
morality and demography of a society by legislation, and at the same time
grossly illiberal and reactionary in the rules he sought to impose. As was
pointed out in chapter 2 above, there stood behind Augustus a strong
republican tradition of the state’s interference in the behaviour of the
citizens, through legislation, the courts, and, above all, the censorship.®9
As to the illiberality, it has often been characteristic of dictators and the
like to treat what part, at least, of the citizenry regard as freedoms of
personal choice as signs of decadence, and try to curb them, and
Augustus is easily tarred with that brush; but the debate about the state’s

7% Not only in the capital: Suet. Aug. 47.1; Dio Liv.23.7-8. 7 Dio Li1.15.4.

78 Sestertii and dupondii of brass (orichaleum), asses and quadrantes of copper.
7 Sutherland 1976 (B 356) ch. 4, and ch. 8 below, pp. 316-19. 8 See ch. 2 above, p. 93.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

132 3. AUGUSTUS

role in relation to morality and family is perennial, and we should beware
of imposing a current standard too crudely. Augustus shared with
Cicero®! the belief in a superior early and middle Republic, whose
victories had been based on better morals and solider family virtues, and
he strove to re-create that idealized past.

The legislation relating to slaves and former slaves (freedmen and
freedwomen) occurs relatively late in Augustus’ reign, and was not part
of the ‘package’ of the /eges Iu/iae.82 Proposed by consuls, it may well have
been with the approval or even at the initiative of the Senate; for the
governing class had a tradition (as can be seen in ‘sumptuary laws’) of
restraining their richer members from stepping too far out of line.83 The
astute may even detect, in the Lex Aelia Sentia, some competing
pressures, for example, between the drastic regulation of the number and
kind of persons who could be elevated to Roman citizenship by the mere
process of being liberated by a Roman owner, and, on the other hand, the
even-handed provisions governing conduct between freed people and
their former owners.® The /eges Iuliae de adulteriis and de maritandis
ordinibus and the Lex Papia Poppaea are the group that represent a moral
commitment evinced by Augustus from the beginning,®5 and never
given up. The curious title of the /ex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus seems to
relate only to those parts of the big statute that restricted the right to full
Roman marriage between certain status classes, for example between the
senatorial order and freed persons and between all freeborn persons and
the usual classes of ‘people of low repute’ (énfames); but its best-known
feature is the pressure that it placed on citizens to marry and re-marry,
backed by rewards for those with at least three children and penalties for
the childless. The rewards included priority in the competition for public
office, and the penalties included severe public marks of disesteem for the
unmarried; but the system was made to turn a good deal on how far
people were allowed to take inheritances, and those rules did not apply as
between close kin, nor belowa modestly high property rating. It is fair to
infer that it was the birth-rate in the upper ranks of society that Augustus
cared about (less so to infer that the true purpose of the legislation was
different from what lies on its face, such as the preservation of estates).86
It is, of course, true that Augustus did not dispose of proper demo-

81 Cic. Marcell. 23.

8 The Lex Iunia, which created the status of ‘Junian Latins’, bears the title Iunia Norbana in Inst.
Just. 1. 5.3, and should be dated to a.p. 19 accordingly. If it had been part of the early batch of
Augustus’ laws it would have been a Lex Iulia like the rest.

83 For /eges sumptuariae of Julius Caesar and of Augustus in the old republican tradition, see
Rotondi 1912 (F 685) 421 and 447 and Gell. NA 11.24.14-15.

% Accusation of ingratitude against freedmen, Dig. 40.9. 30 pr.; but if patron fails to support
freedman he loses rights, Dig. 38.2.33; and if he obliges freedman or freedwoman to agree not to

marry he loses rights, Dig. 37.14.15.
8 The standard view; challenged by Badian 1985 (F 4). 8 So Wallace-Hadrill 1981 (F 73).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACHIEVEMENT 133

graphic knowledge about the trend of the birth-rate and what needed to
be achieved to change it; but he probably thought he knew quite enough,
and the upper class he could, if unsystematically, observe. His legislation
was not going to produce waves of stout yeomen (unless by imitation of
their betters), but what he might achieve was a stable officer class. That
such was his aim is corroborated by two other new legal rules that will
have had importance mainly for the better-off: first, the introduction of
peculium castrense, the fund comprising what a filius familias earned from,
or acquired in connexion with, his military service, which he could
control independently of his paterfamilias, and, secondly, the rule that a
paterfamilias was not allowed to disinherit a filius familias during his
military service.87

Augustus was, then, probably telling in the Res Gestae the simple truth
about what he conceived his legislation to have been for: ‘By new
statutes passed on my initiative I restored many good examples of our
forbears that were disappearing from the current age, and I personally8
handed on to posterity examples of many things for them to imitate’.
That does not mean that it was particularly successful or that it was
without pernicious consequences, of which perhaps the worst was that
the marriage laws conjured up a fiscal interest in escheated estates that
had not existed before.

3. Ideology

The act of creative policy, however, that was Augustus’ abiding legacy
to Rome was the bringing into being of an ideology of rule, parallel to
the careful traditionalism of most of what has been spoken of so far —
surprising, in that it manifests itself quite early in Augustus’ reign, and
multifaceted, so that to describe it even summarily involves consider-
ation of many phenomena, of which the ‘imperial cult’ is only one.
Glorification of the personality of the ruler, advertisement of his role,
proclamation of his virtues, pageantry over his achievements, visual
reminders of his existence, and the creation of a court and a dynasty:
those are, par excellence, the things that make a.p. 14 different from 30 B.c.

It is a difficult question how far the pattern of ideas and symbols that
pervades the culture of Augustus’ age was ‘orchestrated’. Scholars do
make such a claim,®? and, however great the need to resist exaggeration,
at least some of the broad lines of the pattern must have been someone’s
deliberate contrivance. Augustus was probably entirely sincere when he

87 Respectively, Tit. Ulp. 20.10; Dig. 28.2.26.

8 RG 8, 5. The Greek version says ‘I gave myself as an example’.

89 They are influenced by Weinstock 1971 (F 235). See, e.g., Gros 1976 (F 397) esp. ch. 1; Zanker
1987 (F 632) 110-13; 215.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

134 3. AUGUSTUS

said he wanted to be remembered as the creator of the ‘best possible
condition’ (optimus status), and in his delight when the crew and
passengers of a ship from Alexandria put on festal dress and poured
libations and cried that ‘because of him they had their livelihood, because
of him they sailed the seas, they enjoyed freedom and prosperity through
him’;® but into that broad river flowed many channels, some the result
of more deliberate channelling than others.

The public cult of the ruler bulks large in the ideology of the Roman
empire. Augustus began it — though Iulius Caesar and Antony would
have done the same. Cult means, strictly, performing acts of worship to
the ruler as a god, but, broadly conceived, it is about people’s percep-
tions and descriptions of the ruler and his role, and also about the
practical business of securing and rewarding adherents in positions of
importance in the cities and regions. The cult of the ruler as founder,
saviour and benefactor was well established in the Greek-speaking
world, and such honours had been bestowed, from time to time, on
Roman commanders in the late Republic; even ‘Roma’, as a divinity, had
come to bean object of cult in the East.%! But it was the rival claims of the
triumvirs to influence in the cities that raised the stakes in the game,” and
hence the cult and symbolism of the ruler were promoted and financed in
the East by Augustus and by his wealthier supporters.°3 In Rome, the
plebs had offered worship to Scipio, Marius and Julius Caesar, but its
betters had been too strongly principes inter pares for that, and Augustus
behaved carefully. A gesture used by his successors, but no doubt
deriving from him,™ was the refusal of public divine honours for his
person in his lifetime: we have seen how he declined to allow Agrippa’s
temple in the Campus to be called ‘Augusteum’. On the other hand, there
were by now many Roman citizens about the world: the colonizations of
Iulius Caesar had made a big difference. For them, the answer was an
official cult of ‘Rome and Augustus’. The West and North (except for
Provence, southern Spain and Africa, long the home of cives Romani)
were still under conquest and first-stage reorganization, and had no
traditions offering precedent: Augustus promoted there major centres of
cult and ceremony, the ‘Altar of the Three Gauls’ at Lugdunum and the
’Altar of the Ubii’ at Cologne. For the Roman plebs there was yet
another expedient in this rich fund of devices, the setting of anew cult of
the genius, or ‘abiding spirit’, of the ruler amongst the little tutelary gods
of the ‘blocks’ of urban Rome, the /ares compitales: their cult was in the
charge of the ‘block leaders’, magistri vicorum.9> Those magistri were

9 Suet. Ang. 28.2;98.2. % Mellor 1975 (F 186). %% Reynolds 1982 (B 270) nos, 7, 8 and 12.

% Millar 1984 (D 102). The ‘Common Councils’ certainly pre-existed, but they were rumed into a
principal focus of the cult. % Charlesworth 1939 (F 115).

35 Simon 1986 (F 577) 97-103; Zanker 1987 (F 632) 135-8.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACHIEVEMENT 135

freedmen; Augustus took account more globally of the fact that large
numbers of Roman citizens were actually of that status, promoting
another novelty: collegia of freedmen devoted to the cult of the ruler came
into being in the cities under the title of ‘Augustales’, forming a
freedman elite parallel to the municipal elites of the freeborn.™

No account on the scale here available can do justice to this vast
subject. The antiquarian revival of cults, temples and ceremonies in
Rome, and the harnessing of the major priesthoods to the new order, are
part of the story;%” so, too, the inclusion of Augustus’ genius in oaths
sworn by the divinities; so, too, the additions to the religious calendar
celebrating his important dates. We have been bidden, rightly, to
develop an imagination for the enormous visual impact of it all, with
images of the ruler everywhere, in endless profusion, both actual and
portrayed on the coinage. In summary, the whole complex was meant to
serve as an ecumenical unifying force: citizens and non-citizens, classes
and statuses, language- and culture-groups enmeshed in a common,
though varied, symbolic network, and the cult acts of Gallic magnates,
leading bourgeois of Asia, successful freedmen in the municipia, the plebs
of Rome, and the legions,%8 all focussed on the ruler, legitimizing his rule
on the charismatic plane, while ministering at the same time to their own
desire for social prominence.

The ‘divine family’ must return into consideration here, from a more
conceptual viewpoint. Should we, for example, see Livia Drusilla as an
‘empress’, or Gaius and Lucius Caesar as ‘princes’? Did Augustus inhabit
a ‘palace’, and was he surrounded by a ‘court’? The best answer to all
those questions would be ‘hardly, yet’, and, as in the constitutional
sphere, comparison with the Severan or Diocletianic age shows how far
there was to go. Yet transition was certainly occurring, as can be neatly
seen in the matter of Augustus’ house.” Its nucleus was the house of the
republican orator, Hortensius, on the south-western slope of the
Palatine, and it remained modest in type and scale, though neighbouring
properties were added to it! to an extent that is yet uncertain (and the
well-known ‘House of Livia’ presumably came to count as part of it). But
the symbolic significance of the dwelling was played upon with insist-
ence.!°! Augustus’ temple of Apollo was built not merely adjacent to it
but connecting directly with it. Then, in 27 B.c., the civic crown of oak
was placed permanently above its doorway, and laurels were planted to
flank the entrance.!02 When Augustus became pontifex maximus in 12

% Duthoy 1978 (E 37)-
7 Augustus was, besides pontifex maximus, a member of all the major priestly colleges; and their

role on the Ara Pacis is evident. % Kienast 1982 (c 136) 211, with n. 168.
% Coarelli 1985 (E 20) 129-33. 100 Suet. Aug. 72.1.
101 Wiseman 1994 (F 81) esp. 101-8. 102 RG 34, 2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

136 3. AUGUSTUS

B.C., a shrine of Vesta was consecrated in the house.!% After a fire on the
Palatine in A.D. 2 or 3, in which the house of Augustus and the temple of
the Magna Mater suffered badly, a public subscription was got up, of
which Augustus graciously accepted part; but he then declared the house
public property, as being the residence of the pontifex maximus. A few
years later, Ovid, describing how his books from exile might approach
the ruler, shows — if we discount a degree of understandable sycophancy
— how much more than a mere house the ‘Caesaris domus’, though still
so called, had become.!5

The association of the ruler’s family with him took no long time to
develop.!% We have seen the ‘divine family’ on exhibition in the frieze of
the Ara Pacis of 13 B.c., and can see it at a later stage in the inscriptions
recorded in the Codex Einsiedlensis as coming from statues that adorned
a gateway at Ticinum, dated to Augustus’ thirtieth tribunician power,
A.D. 7-8.!97 Honours, even cult, were paid in the cities to members of the
family besides Augustus. To what extent the group associated, or even
lived, together is uncertain;!°8 but there sound like the makings of a
‘court’ when we hear of Augustus’ views about the younger members
appearing for dinner with their elders and whether young Claudius
could be allowed to make public appearances,!© and there is rather more
evidence about the education of the ‘princes’ and other youngsters who
belonged to the charmed circle.!!9 The house of a princeps vir of the
republican time had never been solely a haven of privacy, so it was not
new for the ruler to live his life in the public gaze, but Augustus wanted
his domus to serve as a universal exemplar of the values he aimed to
promote.

Most of the evidence about imperial insignia and ceremonial!!!
concerns developments later than Augustus: till well after his day,
accessibility of the ruler and primacy inter pares remained the ideal. The
orb and sceptre carried by the ‘emperor’, the sacred fire carried before the
‘empress’, belong to an ideology that was to lead to the remote and
hieratic emperorship of late antiquity, and hardly began before the
middle of the second century A.D. Yet some seminal elements can already
be traced, for example, in the oak-leaf crowns and laurel wreaths, and the
symbolism of victory-on-the-orb on the coinage and elsewhere; and

103 The Calendar for April 28, in EJ. 104 Dio Lv.12.4-5.

19% Ov. Tr, 1.1.69—70; 11.1.3 3-40. The formal approach was by then, it seems, from the northern
side, via the Forum Romanum.

106 Beginning with the grant of tribunician sacrosanctity to Livia and Octavia, the wives of the
triumvirs, in 35 B.C. 107 EJ? 61.

108 Agrippa was offered a home there in 25 .c., after his own had burnt down, Dio u111.27.5; but
it is not clear that that was more than temporary. 109 Suet. Aug. 64.3; Claud. 4.1-6.

110 Wallace-Hadril] 1983 (B 190) 177-80; Kienast 1982 (c 136) 253-63.

"11 AlfOldi 1971 (F 246) and 1980 (F 247).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACHIEVEMENT 137

Augustus was accorded the right to wear at any time the triumphal
costume, which was the dress of Jupiter himself, and included a sceptre.

In any case, ceremonial in a wider sense was of the first importance.
Augustus was a supreme showman (or someone was on his behalf), and
made a perpetually inventive use of the ‘parallel language’ to maintain
himself and his achievements in the public consciousness. The games
and shows are one part of the story, valuable to him to establish a
relationship to his plebs, to preside over its pleasures and expose himself
to its demonstrations. Augustus provided generously, adding /udi
Actiaci and /udi Martiales to the traditional regular series; and there were
regular games on his birthday from 11 B.c. onwards. Triumphs, the
irregular spectacle par excellence, reserved after 19 B.c. for members of the
‘divine family’, were pretty rare, but they were complemented by the
great funerals, often also with games: Marcellus, Octavia, Agrippa,
Drusus. As for the posthumous honours for Gaius and Lucius Caesar,
their complexity and comprehensiveness are revealed in detail by
inscriptions!!2 (which show, incidentally, that such ceremonies were not
laid on only at Rome, but took place in the municipalities and provinces).

The reign was punctuated by other colourful excitements; Augustus’
pride in them is attested by the attention given to them in the Res Gestae.
There was the journey of Senate and people to Campania to meet the
returning ruler in 19 B.c., with the ceremonies at the altar of Fortuna
Redux: ‘returns’ became a standard occasion for pageantry. The /di
Saeculares in 17 B.C., the thronged assembly for Augustus’ assumption of
the role of pontifex maximus in 12 B.C., the full triumph of Tiberius in 7
B.c., the successive installations of Gaius and Lucius as principes
iuventutis, reached a culmination in 2 B.c. with the bestowal of the title
pater patriae on Augustus and the dedication of the temple of Mars Ultor,
accompanied by gladiatorial combats and the long-remembered ‘Naval
Battle of the Greeks and Persians’. Perhaps creativity ran out after 2 B.c.,
but activity did not, for the games of A.p. 8 in honour of Germanicus and
(astonishingly) Claudius were notable, and it must not be forgotten that
it was intended for Augustus and Tiberius to hold full triumphs after the
defeat of the Pannonian rebellion in a.p. 9, and Tiberius did celebrate
one on 23 October of A.D. 12 or 13. The whole was, in any event, a
remarkable calendar of novelties to keep the images of victory and peace
simultaneously before the public eye.

Commonly related to the process of image-building are the legends
and pictures on the Augustan coinage. It is wise to be cautious about
calling them ‘propaganda’, not least because much uncertainty and
disagreement persists as to whom the coinage was supposed to influence

12 EJ? 68-9, and the material in n. 58 above.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

138 3. AUGUSTUS

and who decided on the types and legends.!!3 Gold coinage, and even
silver, down to the denarius (the ‘tribute-money’) will not often have
been in the hands of ordinary people; and some of the best-known
‘speaking’ types and legends are portentously rare and must have been
struck in relatively tiny issues, while, conversely, some very large
emissions have relatively uninformative material on them. New money
probably went first to the troops, so the influence of the coins may have
been intended primarily for them; certainly, an explosion of vivid and
dramatic, plainly propaganda, types is a feature of the years after Julius
Caesar’s assassination, and they were part of the armoury of the
triumvirs and Sextus Pompeius. In the new age after Actium that
momentum was maintained for a while, but it then diminished. Augus-
tus’ ‘saving of the citizens’ and the crown of oak leaves, and the Shield of
the Virtues, achieved celebration, as did festivals and buildings and cult
—Fortuna Redux, the /wdi saeculares, Actian Apollo, the Altar of the Three
Gauls and the temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamum. The
collegiality of Augustus and Agrippa was also given some emphasis. But
the only specific promotional campaign run by the official coinage was
bestowed on Gaius and Lucius Caesar (though the successes of Tiberius
late in the reign did not go quite without mark). At least, however, the
Augustan coinage was, even in terms of types, as well as scale, a world-
coinage, with Lugdunum and Nemausus, Ephesus and Pergamum, all
striking to recognizably similar effect, and as a dissemination of the
image of the ruler that was tremendous.

Buildings also (to return to that important theme) were part of the
image-making.!!4 The public heart of the city of Rome was transformed:
everyone knows how Augustus boasted that he had ‘taken over a Rome
of brick and left a Rome of marble’,'!5 and Ovid, justifying the soignée
look for ladies, exclaims ‘Before, all was country plainness: now Rome is
of gold’.!'6 The transformation was not just in grandeur, but in symbolic
orientation towards the ruler. It is, indeed, unfair to see the programme
solely in that context: improvement and amenity went hand in hand with
symbolism. Sewers and water supply, markets and porticoes, theatres
and an amphitheatre, improvements to the race-course, parks, baths and
libraries now adorned Rome, and Agrippa’s part was the more brilliant
in that it combined the prosaic and the charismatic. But improvement
stopped short when it paid no dividends in prestige (and when Agrippa
was no longer there), so that some of the recurrent scourges of the plebs
— floods, fires and collapses — were tackled with less than total
commitment. About the transformation of Augustus’ house enough has

3 Consigliere 1978 (c 64); Sutherland 1976 (B 356); Levick 1982 (B 338); Wallace-Hadrill 1986 (B

362). 14 See the references in ch. 2, n. 13 above.
115 Suet. Aug. 28.3. Carrara marble had just come into use. "6 Ov. Ars Am. 111.113.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACHIEVEMENT 139

been said, and about his new Forum; but even the Forum Romanum
took on the symbolism of the ruler and his divine ancestry, and Jupiter
Tonans on the Capitol stole some of the limelight of the Capitoline god
himself.!!7 Agrippa adorned the middle Campus, Augustus the northern
part, with the Mausoleum, the Ara Pacis and the Horologium. Buildings
were erected by, or in the name of, many members of the ‘divine family’;
as for the republican tradition by which triumphing generals embel-
lished the capital and built roads ‘out of spoils’ (ex manubiis), Augustus
was keen for it to continue, and for a while it did, endowing Rome with
such important structures as Asinius Pollio’s Atrium Libertatis, with the
first Roman public library, Cn. Domitius Calvinus’ marble rebuilding of
the Regia, T. Statilius Taurus’ amphitheatre in the Campus and the
major temples of C. Sosius (Apollo Sosianus in the Campus) and C.
Cornificius (Diana on the Aventine). That tradition only died out
because the triumphs and the independent commands on which they
rested died out: the last major such building was the theatre of Balbus,
and he was, precisely, the last person outside the ‘divine family’ to
celebrate a full triumph.

It hardly needs saying that building programmes advertising the ruler
were not confined to the capital. Nor, in the Roman world in general,
were they confined to structures erected at government expense, for
there was a great mass of building on local and private initiative, as the
municipal wealthy responded to the stability of the ‘Augustan Peace’.
Much was, however, inspired from the centre, such as the Augustan
arches that still stand in testimony to the construction of roads, city-walls
and harbours, and other imposing structures still to be seen — the Pont du
Gard, the Maison Carrée, the public buildings of Mérida: enough for the
imagination to grasp how new a visual world had been created by a.p.
14. In the Roman Forum stood the Golden Milestone,'!8 and the
Chorographic Map of Agrippa stood in his sister Vipsania’s portico.!!9

Of such elements was composed the great assault on the psychology of
a generation. A consistent ideology is conveyed, an ‘Augustan synthe-
sis’, the visual monuments being echoed by the literary monuments: it
may be summarily spelt out, under three or four heads. First, this is a
‘new age’, novum saeculum — the keystone of Virgil’s Aeneid,!® the theme
of the /udi saeculares and of the architectural transformation of Rome. It is
an age in which the Hellenic and Roman cultural heritages are to be no
longer enemies but partners,'2! a partnership symbolized by Actian
Apollo, the god combining arms and arts, with his temple and libraries
on the Palatine. The gift of the new age is the ‘Augustan Peace’; and the

117 On the Forum Romanum, Simon 1986 (F 577) 84-91; on Jupiter Tonans, Zanker 1987 (F 632)

114. 118 Dio tiv. 8.4. "9 Strab. 11.5.17 (120C); Pliny, HN 11.17.
129 Virg. Aen. v1.791-853. 121 Bowersock 1965 (C 39) ch. 10.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

140 3. AUGUSTUS

prerequisite of that peace is the ruler’s untiring devotion to his cura, by
reason of his virtus, clementia, iustitia and pietas. But it demands an
answering devotion from others, a willingness to constitute a nation of
stern morality and stable family life: that comes out best in the most
overtly moralizing of all the literary monuments, the Carmen Saeculare of
Horace. And amongst the duties demanded is untiring militarism. For
Roman victory and supremacy to be maintained the Romans must keep
’ faith with their long history. That is the message of the Fasti Trium-
phales and the busts of Rome’s heroes in the porticoes of the Augustan
Forum, of the triumphal arches placed about the Roman world, and of
the importance attached to the ‘return of the standards’ in the symbolic
nexus. Virgil’s ‘Be it thy care, O Roman, to rule the peoples with thy
sway’ is the formal repudiation of the Epicureanism of Lucretius: “Better
to obey in quiet than wish to rule things with your sway and control
kingdoms. !22

4. Resistance

The ‘Augustan synthesis’, thus summarized, is a rich diet and a heady
brew; historical therapy demands that it be countered, in conclusion, by
more astringent and sobering reflections. The historian must ask how
successful the mystique was. To what extent can we perceive scepticism,
rejection, an alternative ideology,!? a revolutionary temper, even?
‘Resistance’ is an insistent modern theme;!24 how much of it is to be
found beneath the confident surface of the ‘Augustan synthesis’?

A distinction can properly be made between political and ideological
dissent within the Roman people (which is really our theme) and the
resistance of conquered peoples to Roman imperialism. Of the latter
there was enough and to spare, but the only question about it needing to
be raised here is how Augustan rule was viewed in the Greek half of
Rome’s dominions. For the Greek world too, was a conquered world.
Most of it, indeed, had been conquered already under the Republic, and
the ‘intellectual opposition’ (a well-worn topic)!25 was rather to Rome in
general than to the Augustan rearrangements — though it was them that
Alexandria long bitterly resented.'26 By and large, the ruling classes, to
whom the Augustan effort was mainly addressed, were glad of the
‘Augustan Peace’, which perpetuated their own local predominance; and
there was no shortage of leading families eager for Roman citizenship. If

122 Virg. Aen. v1.851; Lucr. v.1129-30.

123 D’ Elia 1955 (B 41); La Penna 1963 (B 102).

1% See the collections of papers in Pippidi 1976 (a 72a) and Yuge and Doi 1988 (a 111).

13 Bowersock 1965 (C 39) ch. 8.

126 Hence the ‘Acts of the Pagan Martyrs’: for the Augustan items that may belong to them, see
Musurillo 1954 (B 381) no. 1; POxy 3020; POxy 2435, verso (= EJ? 379).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACHIEVEMENT 14!

they did not ‘rally to the support of the Principate’,!2’ they did not rally
against it. The two expatriate Greek intellectuals in Rome of the
Augustan time of whose writings the most survives today, Dionysius of
Halicarnassus and Strabo of Amaseia, were enthusiastic supporters; if
the rest of the Greek world was cooler, it was not estranged.

Coming, however, to Roman opposition to Augustus, we should first
remember that there were conspiracies, numerous, it appears,!?8 and
spanning his whole reign. Heads of state are, notoriously, at the mercy of
plain and simple assassination attempts by individuals, but it was —
presumably — Augustus’ triumph not to bring upon himself a conspiracy
of an entire section of the governing class, as Iulius Caesar had done. As
to conspiracy by factions within the ‘divine family’, reasons have been
given for wariness in the face of some sensational hypotheses; in so far as
such conspiracies existed, they seem to have been directed against the
succession of Tiberius, and, in the end, by him against residual rivals.

More generally, however, we have to do with what was described
earlier as resistance to playing the game by Augustus’ rules and
subscribing to the Augustan ethic. Modern studies place emphasis on the
‘crisis of recruitment’ of the senatorial class and Augustus’ continual
battle against the apathy of senators towards attendance in the Curia;
they invite attention, too, to the ‘crisis of recruitment’ of the armed
forces in the last decade of the reign. And, lastly, recent studies of
Augustan Latin literature have dwelt upon the themes of resistance to
tyranny, revolt against crude demands for panegyric and conformity,
and covert undermining of the official ethic and promotion of an
alternative ideology of ‘love, not war’ — with the fates of Cornelius
Gallus, at one end, and Ovid, at the other, as the real, and damning,
historical symbols of the ‘Augustan Peace’.

As to the ‘crisis of recruitment’ in the governing elite, something has
been already said, and a distinction has been insisted on: from the top
parts of the cursus honorum and the valuable and prestige-enhancing
offices of state there was no such flight, and leading dignitaries from the
provinces would soon be eager for a place in the system. In the case of the
armies, conscription was certainly needed at the military crisis, which
shows that the envisaged system was over-stretched; the reduction of the
legions to twenty-five after the Varian disaster may have brought the size
of the citizen army into balance with what the recruiting possibilities
were as well as what the treasury could afford. Already in a.p. 5 the
length of service of legionary rank-and-file was raised from sixteen to
twenty years, because time-expired soldiers were not staying on;!29 that
implies that there were not plenty of citizens queuing to take over from

127 Bowersock 1965 (c 39) 104; he is talking specifically about a.p. 6.
128 Suet. Aag. 19.1; Dio rv.15.1. 129 Dio tv.23.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

142 3. AUGUSTUS

them. But the undoubted eventual decline of recruitment in Italy was a’
very long-term process, hardly to be attributed to discontent with
Augustus. He did not, after all, find himself constrained to raise the pay
of the troops, he gave only two army donatives, and he was able to
impose a prohibition of iustum matrimonium upon serving soldiers.! At
his death the northern armies were just about to mutiny; but they had
not, nor had the rest, simply melted away.

Finally, as to social and moral attitudes, in literature and life: Augustus
proposed, in certain matters, standards stiffer than those to which part, at
least, of the leading class were accustomed. Resistance to the legislation
about sexual behaviour, marriage, celibacy and childlessness (and to the
direct taxation of cives Romani!) was vociferous. On the other hand, the
very practical case of high-status people engaging in theatrical and
gladiatorial performances, and of the attempts by the Senate as well as
Augustus to prohibit such conduct, !3! brings out the feature that the elite
had motives for maintaining its own cohesion by drawing the bounds of
accepted standards more tightly. Nevertheless, we can appreciate why,
more than anything else, it was Augustus’ daughter who broke the spell
of Augustus’ vision — the candid and caustic Iulia, who did every bit of
her duty in her dynastic role but refused to bound her life with demure
domesticity.

Some bons mots of Iulia survived, as did some of her father’s!32 — and of
his opponents. It is not right to imply (though that is sometimes done)
that the voice of opposition was somehow suppressed from the historical
record, for plenty of it has come down to us, not only in anecdotes but in
whole passages in the chief historians where editors point out that the
writer is ‘following a hostile source’.

And the poets?!33 They have been seen by some as purveyors of
propaganda, drafted in detail by someone for them to versify: for how
else could their images correspond so well with those of the visual
monuments? Patronage certainly demanded its guid pro quo, and it was
open and explicit in that age: the frankest statement is the preface of
Vitruvius’ De Architectura.'4 We must beware of hypocrisy: we find no
difficulty about accepting that the epigrammatists Crinagoras and
Antipater wrote to order for the ‘divine family’ and others, or that the
panegyrist of Messalla or the writer of the Consolatio ad Liviam were
clientes, so why should we doubt it of the patriotic purple passages in the
Aeneid, the ‘Roman Odes’ of Horace, the Carmen Saeculare, or Propertius’

1% Campbell 1978 (D 172) esp. 153-4.

13 Illuminated by the new bronze from Larinum, AE 1978, 145; see Levick 1983 (c 369).

132 Julia: Macrob. Sat. 1.5; Augustus, ibid. 11.4. 133, See ch. 19, below.

1M Vier. De Arch. Praef. 2-3. Vitruvius was the only one to whom Augustus is known to have
been direct patron.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACHIEVEMENT 143

celebrations of Roman legend? Tibullus, precisely because he never
belonged to the crucial sa/on, could stay cool and aloof from the
Augustan mystique, and Ovid was able to take on the role of cynic and
‘debunker’ for the same reason, while Propertius trod a complicated
middle ground. It is in Ovid and Propertius that we meet most explicitly
the ‘alternative life style’, the cult of the clandestine love-affair, the theme
of militia amoris, or ‘love, the true enlistment’, and the cry that ‘there shall
no soldier be born of thee and me’.!35 Yet even among the ‘establish-
ment’ poets there occurred recusatio, the elegant refusal of commissions:
Augustus never got the simply conceived epic of his Res Gestae that he
would have liked, nor the revival of good old native drama.'* A recent
tendency goes further, detecting concealed sniping even in the most
panegyrical works. Is fulsomeness of praise, then, a form of deliberate
‘overkill’? Is the Aeneid, actually, a condemnation of Augustan trium-
phalism (since it is, admittedly, not a naive affirmation)? Some recent
claims may come to be thought exaggerated: what it is certainly
important not to forget is that, with the exception of Ovid, the minds
and hearts of the major poets — and of Livy — were formed before
Augustus ever became Augustus, and so were his mind and heart. Their
praise of peace and the unity of Italy and Rome’s mission, their vision of
the ‘new age’, grew out of the experiences of the late Republic and the
triumviral age, and Augustus, their coeval, was the fortunate inheritor of
those sentiments: he did not have to drum them up. It may be that all of
them, including himself, as time went on, came to perceive only too well the
price that had to be paid for the ‘Augustan Peace’.

For the Augustan creation perpetuated some of the ruthlessness of its
origins. Certainly, in the ‘police states’ that we nowadays know, the
ordinary folk as well as their betters are under fear and compulsion — the
informer in the pub and the apartment block, the exclusion of the
dissident from employment and of his children from education, the
bloody suppression of meetings and arrest of popular leaders. The
Augustan regime did not possess the apparatus of ideological tyranny to
operate on that global scale, though every provincial governor’s duty of
‘maintaining the peace’ included keeping a sharp eye on public meetings,
and both abroad and in Rome the co/legia were anxiously controlled. In
Rome, too, the Egnatius episode shows that the government would not
tolerate a successful demagogue; and the city was heavily policed at the
crisis of A.D. 6.

But if we stick to the ambience of the governing elite at the political
centre, there, particularly, though not exclusively, in Augustus’ later
years, things were done that we do associate with the behaviour of
‘police states’: the widening of the range of offences counting as treason

138. Prop. 1.7.14. 1% If that is what he wanted, as argued by La Penna 1963 (B 102).
P. gued by 9

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

144 3. AUGUSTUS

(with the inevitable encouragement of informers); banishments and
exiles without trial; the sudden courier and the enforced suicide; the
suppression of literature and the banning, and worse, of authors. And
those things were a legacy: they formed part of the apparatus of rule of
Augustus’ successors, used from time to time as raison d’état demanded.

Yet, though they were a characteristic, they were not the dominant
characteristic, nor even the dominant ultimate weakness, of Augustus’
creation. The work known as the Dialogus, attributed to Tacitus,
contains, through the mouth of an ‘opposition’ writer, a well-known
expression of the view that the ending of the creative phase of, at least,
Roman eloquence was directly due to the loss of freedom.!3’ That was
not the only view then,!38 nor need it be now; but historians are not
wrong to perceive a general loss of momentum supervening on the
Augustan triumphs. The late Republic had been moving fast; the very
fact of Augustus’ rule, let alone his ideals and policies, applied a brake
that brought his whole society to a relative standstill. The ‘New Age’
was conceived of as a ‘return to the Age of Saturn’, not a great leap into
the future; and just as the Greek literature of the age swung back from
‘Asianism’ to ‘Atticism’, so did the visual arts return from Hellenistic
‘baroque’ to serene Classicism and even a curious cult of the Archaic.139
It is likely that to most of the upper classes in the Roman world, in most
respects, that result was welcome rather than otherwise, for their interest
was in stability, and Augustus had to fit in with their career ambitions
and social expectations as much as they with his proddings and
exhortations. Certainly, his revolution was no social revolution: the
maintenance, and strengthening, of status hierarchy was high on its
priorities,!49 and some historians have seen its principal historical effect
as the consolidation of the ‘slave society’. Be that as it may, ‘it is a fair
criticism of the new order, that its temptation was to be static in high
matters’,!4! and stability is, of the political virtues, the least heart-
warming to read about.

J. An estimate

Tacitus offers an appraisal of Augustus, in contrasting paragraphs: what
can be said in his favour and what against.!42 For Tacitus, as for many
historians after him, the bad outweighed the good. Nevertheless,
whether for good or ill, Tacitus lived in a political world of which
Augustus had been the principal architect; and for an estimation of

137K, Heldmann, Antike Theorien ber Entwicklung und Verfall der Redekunst v1.1, Munich, 1982,
esp. 271-86.

138 It is not even the only view in the Dialogus; and in ‘On the Sublime’, ch. 44, expressed more
broadly, it is rejected by the author of that work himself; see Heldmann, Antike Theorien v1.2.

139 Literature: Gabba 1982 (B 57); visual arts: Simon 1986 (F 577) 110-36, with the illustrations.
10 Rawson 1987 (F 56). 141 Adcock, CAH x! 606. 142 Tac. Ann. t.g-10.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACHIEVEMENT 145

Augustus’ achievement, for good or ill, it is as necessary to look at what
followed him as at what preceded him. For we can then see that his was
nota ‘blueprint’ creation, but experimental, and that it underwent much
further change. Neither was it in all respects successful, even in his own
time and terms:!*3 there was more propaganda than reality about some of
the military enterprises, and the programme of social reform probably
had little good effect and certainly had some bad. As for the subsequent
changes, some represent practical breakdowns in his scheme of things.
For instance, the transmission of power broke down with Nero, and it is
doubtful whether Augustus envisaged the rise of any of the new
equestrian officials to formal political influence, and virtually certain that
he would have been appalled at the political power of freedmen.

But if we look from the political world of Cicero to that of Tacitus, we
ought to be able to discern what structures Augustus left (in principle, at
least, and for good or ill) to the Roman world after him. First, the
ideology, as well as the reality, of a single ruler (supported, it might be,
by a collega imperii). Secondly, a system for the transmission of power and
authority, namely dynasty, by birth or adoption, coupled with the
bringing of the chosen successor into proper relation with the legitimiza-
tions of power as early as possible, which, though sometimes nullified in
practice, was always, in principle, revived and never supplanted.
Thirdly, a rule of law — for the ruler was not, in principle, ‘above the law’
— intended normally to prevail, although raison d'état overrode it all too
readily in crises.'44 Fourthly, the preservation of strict social hierarchy,
the leading role being still assigned to the senatorial order, the governing
class of the empire remaining a tiny elite. Fifthly, unchanged also from
the Republic, the principle of ‘government without bureaucracy’,!45 by
which the local management of the vast empire was left to the
municipalities and imperial administration could remain unprofessiona-
lized and economical of manpower and cost. Sixthly, by contrast, armed
forces that were, in the lower ranks, professional. They were composed
partly of Roman citizens and partly of non-citizens, and by careful
budgeting they were supported ona scale enabling them to achieve some
modest further expansion of Rome’s dominions down to the time of
Trajan — though they were destined, in the ‘Year of the Four Emperors’,
to be the vehicle of renewed civil war. Lastly, it would be unfair to rob
Augustus of his part in turning the city of Rome into a monumental
imperial capital.

‘Achievement’, however, may seem too biographical a term in which

43, Raaflaub 1980 (c 190), and see ch. 4, below.
14 Nero’s remark, in the course of murdering Britannicus (Suet. Ner. 33.2), ‘So I’m supposed to

be frightened of the Lex Iulia’, illustrates the consciousness of the rule of law in the very moment of
flouting it. 145 Garnsey and Saller 1987 (A 34) ch. z.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

146 3. AUGUSTUS

to estimate the place of Augustus in history: more neutrally, we could
substitute ‘results’ or ‘effects’, and the observed effects may have had a
multiplicity of causes, amongst which Augustus was only one. He stands
between what we recognize (or have created for our own convenience)
as two ages of European history, the Roman Republic and the Roman
Empire. But was he, after all, the ‘architect’ of the Empire? Or was he just
the culminating ‘dynast’ thrown up by the ‘Roman Revolution’, a
process of change that began with Sulla, or even the Gracchi, and had its
own momentum, so that even if Antony had won at Actium or Augustus
had died in 23 B.c. the Roman Republic would still have been succeeded
by the Roman Empire? What specific contribution is it possible to
attribute to Augustus within that massive historical process? Perhaps
just this much (if only by slipping back into biography): if Julius Caesar
or Antony had been the culminating dynast there would, very likely, still
have been a Roman Empire, but it would, very likely, have had a
different face. The characteristic structure of the Empire, in which so
much of what was new was based so firmly on what was old, is likely to
have owed something to the particular cast of mind of its first ruler —
narrow, pragmatic and traditionalist. Augustus was equated, in his time,
with most of the gods of the Roman pantheon; today, we might think
him best fitted by one he was not equated with, Janus, as he steered the
Roman world into the future with his eyes fixed on the values of the past.
Plutarch records a saying of his (it matters little whether vero or ben
trovato): when somebody told him that Alexander, after his conquests,
had been at a loss what to do next, Augustus said he was surprised that
Alexander had not realized that a greater job than acquiring empire was
getting it into shape when you had acquired it.'47 The shape of the
Roman Empire was his contribution.

1% See the studies in the bibliography, a 82a.
47 Plut. Apophthegmata reg. et imp. 207D, 70 S:ardgéat rv UTdpxoucar.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 4

THE EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE
UNDER AUGUSTUS

ERICH S. GRUEN

The contemporaries of Augustus delivered high praise for conquest and
empire. The poet of the Aeneid has Jupiter forecast a Roman rule that
will know no bounds of time or space, and Anchises’ pronouncement
from the underworld previews Augustus extending imperial power to
the most remote peoples of the world. Livy characterizes his city as caput
orbis terrarum and its people as princeps orbis terrarum populus. Horace
asserts that the maiestas of the imperium stretches from one end of the
world to the other.!

The phrases echo sentiments and expressions of the Roman Republic.
Militarism marked much of its history. And the exploits of the con-
queror were envied, honoured and celebrated. Those precedents stimu-
lated and helped shape the character of the Augustan years. Wars
dominate the era, victories were repeatedly gained (or claimed), and the
humbling of external foes became a prime catchword of the regime.

The successes of Augustus abroad suggest a drive to consolidate the
empire, to create a united dominion under Roman rule.” The princeps, it
can be argued, conceived a broad-gauged military strategy, based on
economy of force, which, through a combination of mobile troops and
loyal dependencies, provided both for internal security and frontier
stability.?

Theoretical formulations in retrospect, however, fail to catch the
dynamics of a volatile situation. And they slight the diversity of
geographical, political, diplomatic and cultural considerations that faced
Augustus in the vast expanse of the Roman world. One need not assume
that the princeps had a structured blueprint for empire. Nor did his
actions adhere to a uniform pattern imposed on all sectors of the
imperium Romanum. Different circumstances in different areas provoked a
variety of responses, sometimes cautious, sometimes bold, occasionally
calculated, often extemporaneous. Augustus was less concerned with a
systematic plan for world dominion than with a systematic construct of
his image as world conqueror.

! Virg. Aen. 1.278-9; Livy, xx1.30.10, xxtv.58.8; Hor. Cara. 1v.15.13-16.
2 Cf. Kienast 1982 (c 136) 366-70, 406-20. 3 Luttwak 1976 (A $7) 13-50.

147

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

148 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

I. EGYPT, ETHIOPIA AND ARABIA

The deaths of Antony and Cleopatra left Octavian as master of Egypt.
He would not permit that land to slip from his grasp again. Its wealth and
resources in the hands of a rival would constitute a serious menace, and
its role as a granary could be critical. Egypt became a province in 30 B.C.,
but no ordinary province. Octavian took full responsibility for gover-
nance. He appointed an equestrian prefect to administer the nation, and
allowed no Roman senator or high-ranking egues even to visit it without
his authorization. The princeps reckoned Egypt a place apart and kept
close surveillance over its affairs.4

The prefect of Egypt supervised collection of revenue in the highly
centralized fiscal system, exercised judicial duties, and commanded the
three legions and auxiliary troops stationed in the country.> The forces
seem adequate for the preservation of security and the entrenchment of
Roman control.

Yet Octavian did not content himself with the acquisition of Egypt.
His first appointee as praefectus Aegypti, C. Cornelius Gallus, both poet
and military man, pressed for expansion from the start. He quelled
revolts in Heroonpolis, east of the Delta, and in the Thebaid. That was
an appropriate and expected part of the job. But Gallus had no intention
of stopping there. He took his forces southward, beyond the First
Cataract of the Nile, where, so he claimed, neither Roman nor Egyptian
arms had ever penetrated before. Gallus received representatives of the
king of Ethiopia, accepted the king under his protection, and installed a
dynast to rule over Triacontaschoenus, evidently as buffer zone between
the realms of Egypt and Ethiopia. All this had been accomplished by the
spring of 29 B.c. when Gallus erected a trilingual inscription in Latin,
Greek and hieroglyphics to celebrate his exploits.6 The prefect’s pen-
chant for self-display eventually proved fatal. He had images of himself
set up all over Egypt and a record of his achievements inscribed even on
the pyramids. Such Aybris, combined with a host of other alleged
misdeeds, brought about Gallus’ recall, renuntiatio amicitiae by Augustus,
accusation, conviction and suicide perhaps in 26 B.c.’ But nothing in the
charges raised objections to Gallus’ pushing Roman authority beyond
the First Cataract and obtaining the homage of Ethiopian princes.
Augustus may have frowned on his prefect’s over-zealousness in taking
personal credit for Roman expansion — but he did not disavow the

4 Tac. Aan. 11.59; Hist. 1.11; Dio 11.17.13. See the recent treatments, with bibliography, by
Geraci 1983 (E924) 128-46 and 1988 (£926), who rightly questions the common idea that Augustus
treated Egypt as a ‘private preserve’. It was considered as one among Rome’s revenue producing
provinces; Vell. Pat. 1.39.2; Strab. xvit.1.12 (797C); Tac. Aan. xv.36; Huzar 1988 (Cc 277) 370-9.

5 Onhis position, see Geraci 1983 (2924) 163-76; Huzar 1988 (c 277) 35 2-62; and below, ch. 14d.
6 ILS 8994, 8995; Strab. xvut.1.5 3 (819C). 7 Dio 111.23.5—7; Suet. Aug. 66.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

EGYPT, ETHIOPIA AND ARABIA 149

expansionism. Installation of a client prince and acceptance of the
Ethiopian ruler under Roman protection appealed to the pride — and
probably stemmed from the policy — of Augustus.

The intentions of the princeps emerge with greater clarity in the actions
of the next prefect, Aelius Gallus. First-class testimony survives from the
pen of his friend and confidant Strabo. Augustus instructed his prefect to
investigate the peoples and topography of Ethiopia and to explore the
situation in Arabia. The plan formed a prelude to Gallus’ invasion of
Arabia Felix, the land of the Sabaeans in the north-west corner of the
Arabian peninsula. The economic advantages did not escape Augustus’
notice: the Sabaeans were key suppliers or middlemen in the lucrative
commerce of spices, gems and perfumes from the East. Gallus’ invasion
may have had in view some Roman involvement in that traffic. But the
move forms part of a larger pattern. Roman power was to extend into
both Arabia and Ethiopia and the Sabaeans would be the first step.
Augustus expected to coerce them into alliance, or to add to his
reputation as conqueror.8

As it happened, Aelius Gallus’ venture proved calamitous, and the
plan abortive. Numerous vessels were wrecked in a long and unnecess-
ary voyage from Arsinoe in 26 or 25 B.c. Worse followed when the
troops marched into the interior of Arabia from Leuke Kome, a six
month trek to Marib, major city of the Sabaeans. There were victories, or
alleged victories, along the way, but also disease and death. And the siege
of Marib ended in failure: lack of water dictated the abandonment of the
whole campaign. The humiliated Roman legions returned through the
desert, recrossed the Red Sea and made their way back to Alexandria.
Interested sources did their best to obscure the ignominy. The Res Gestae
of Augustus speaks only of advance into Arabia, to the land of the
Sabaeans and the town of Marib. Not a word about the outcome. And
Strabo, though he does not conceal the failures, places the blame on the
treacherous Nabataean minister Syllaeus who purportedly misdirected
and sabotaged the Roman enterprise.? The fault, however, lay with
Aelius Gallus, or perhaps with Augustus.

The princeps nevertheless refused to be deflected from his scheme.
Arabia no longer seemed inviting, but Ethiopia still beckoned. Augus-
tus’ new prefect of Egypt, P. Petronius, headed the invasion in 25 or 24
B.C., an undertaking whose groundwork had been prepared by Aelius

8 Strab. 1.5.12 (118C); xvi.g.22 (780C); xvit.1.5 3-4 (819-21C); Jameson 1968 (E 939), on the
chronology and motives; cf. Bowersock 1983 (E 990) 46-7; Sidebotham 1986 (c 311), 592-3; 1986 (C
310) 120-4, 138-40; Desanges 1988 1(c 263) 4-7. On Roman commerce in the East, see Raschke
1978 (c 298) 6s0-76; Schmitthenner 1979 (Cc 306) 104-6.

9 Aug. RG 26.5; Strab. xv1.4.23—4 (780-2C); xvit.1.53 (819C); von Wissmann 1978 (C 326) 313—
18; Isaac 1980 (E 1015) 889-go1; Bowersock 1983 (E 990) 46-9; Sidebotham 1986 (c 311); 1986 (c
310) 124-30; Desanges 1988 (C 263) 7-12.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

150 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

Gallus. In Strabo’s version, Ethiopians took the initiative, crossed the
First Cataract, and attacked the towns of Syene, Philae and Elephantine,
thus provoking retaliation by Petronius. There may be truth in that: the
Ethiopians perhaps learned that they had been marked out as next
victims, thus anticipating Rome and taking advantage of the temporary
absence of Roman forces (they were with Aelius Gallus in Arabia).
Petronius’ assault, in response, was vigorous and effective. His troops
drove the Ethiopians out of the places they had seized, pushed them well
back into their own territory, regained the cities and trophies captured
by the Ethiopians, and penetrated all the way to Napata, chief northern
city of the kingdom, which they stormed and destroyed. Only the
forbidding terrain prevented further advance. This was much more than
a retaliatory campaign. Petronius installed a garrison at Primis between
the First and Second Cataracts, dispatched Ethiopian prisoners to
Augustus as token of new conquest, and imposed tribute upon the
people as sign of Roman rule.

An Ethiopian attempt to break the yoke came a year or two later,
under the energetic queen Candace: an attack on the garrison at Primis
which brought Petronius back swiftly from Alexandria. The second
campaign re-established Roman supremacy ina hurry in 22 B.c. Candace
sought terms, and Petronius sent her representatives to the princeps at
Samos, where he magnanimously offered a remission of tribute.!°

Peaceful relations prevailed thereafter. Petronius’ campaigns had
secured the southern borders of Egypt, rendering that land largely
invulnerable to external menace. But this was no mere defensive mission.
Roman suzerainty now extended over the Dodecaschoenus, the zone
between the First and Second Cataracts. And Augustus boasted in the
Res Gestae of military conquest stretching to Napata: Roman power now
reached almost to the great Ethiopian city of Meroe.!!

Aelius Gallus’ ill-fated expedition had thwarted Roman aims in
Arabia Felix. But Augustus maintained interest in the Nabataean Arabs
and even meddled in the internal affairs of that kingdom. Intrigue and
rivalry between the Nabataeans and the realm of Herod the Great in
Palestine kept the princeps repeatedly involved in hearing and judging
competitive claims. Augustus briefly considered adding the Nabataeans
to the dominion of Herod, but decided instead to confirm Aretas IV on
the throne c. 8 B.c. After the death of Herod in 4 B.c., however, Rome
may actually have annexed Nabataea for a short time, subjecting it to
direct rule before relinquishing it again to Aretas. The latter act can be

10 Strab. xvit.1.5 3-4 (819—-21C); Dio L1.5.4-6; Pliny, HN v1.181; see Jameson 1968 (£ 939) 72-6,
79-82; Térdk 1988 (E 976) 275-9. On the name P. Petronius, see Bagnall 1985 (E 889). Additional
bibliography in Burstein 1988 (c 258) 16-20, who argues that the tribute was first imposed by

Cornelius Gallus and that Augustus’ remission of it represented abandonment of his aggressive
policies in the region. "| Aug. RG 26.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ASIA MINOR 151

associated with a military expedition by C. Caesar, grandson of the
princeps, in A.D. 1, who fought a campaign in or near Arabia, out of which
perhaps came the reinstatement of Aretas as Roman client king over the
Nabataeans.!2 Augustus kept in touch with affairs of the Near East — and
made certain to manifest Roman authority in the area.

Ik. ASIA MINOR

The Greek East had been a mainstay for Antony. But the battle of
Actium, followed in the next year by the suicides of Antony and
Cleopatra, tipped the balance decisively. Rulers and dynasts in the
hellenistic world faced a crisis. Earlier support for Antony, once a source
of authority, now became a perilous liability. The new shape of the East
would be at the command of Octavian, a fact that prompted hasty shifts
of allegiance and spread alarm among the leadership.

Octavian, however, knew better than to conduct a wholesale overturn
of the old order. Men of experience and established influence could be
valuable instruments in preserving stability in the Greek world. They
served to illustrate the conqueror’s clemency, to deliver a comforting
sense of continuity, and to transmit the advantages of loyalty to the new
regime.'3

Octavian confirmed the ex-Antonian Polemo in place in Pontus. The
king subsequently gained formal recognition as friend and ally of
Rome.'4 He had to yield up Armenia Minor, but only because Octavian
wished to award it to another ex-Antonian, Artavasdes of Armenia.'5
Polemo collaborated loyally and faithfully with the Augustan regime.
When rebellion broke out in the Bosporan kingdom, headed by an
obscure usurper named Scribonius, Agrippa, who oversaw Rome’s
eastern interests in Syria, commissioned Polemo to restore the situation
in 14 B.c. Polemo carried out the task, though it required Agrippa’s
forces to intimidate the rebels. The Pontic dynast, with Augustus’
approval, went on to marry Dynamis, widow both of Scribonius and the
previous Bosporan king, and to add the Bosporan realm to his own
holdings.'© The combination of royal houses and kingdoms evidently
appealed to Augustus: it permitted him to hold the allegiance of a broad
area under a tested client prince. As it happened, the marriage soon
foundered. Dynamis regained control of her dominion on the Bosporus,
Polemo selected a new bride, Pythodoris from Tralles, and hostilities
resumed between the kingdoms. Polemo fell in battle while endeavour-

12 Pliny, HN 11.168, v1.160; Strab. xv1.4.21 (779C), with the discussion of Bowersock 1983 (E
990) 53-6; cf. Romer 1979 (c 301) 204-8; Sidebotham 1986 (c 310) 130-3. On the Nabataean
kingdom in this period, see Negev 1978 (C 292) 549-69. Gaius’ martial accomplishments are

celebrated in ILS, 140, lines 9-12; EJ? 69. 13. See Levick’s account below, ch. 142.
14 Strab. x11.8.16 (578C); Dio Limt.235.1. 15 Dio Liv.g9.2. 16 Dio Liv.24.4-6

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

152 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

ing to regain the Bosporan realm in 8 B.c., and his wife Pythodoris
inherited power in Pontus.!7 Augustus remained aloof from the contest,
hoping to encourage stability without intervention. Dynamis obtained
recognition as friend and ally of the Roman people. The princeps
preferred to endorse continuing regimes rather than to undermine or
destabilize them. Dynastic ties unravelled between Pontus and the
Bosporan kingdom, but gained new strength between Pontus and
Cappadocia when Polemo’s widow Pythodoris wed Archelaus of Cappa-
docia, thus linking the two kingdoms.'® That arrangement too was
doubtless orchestrated by Augustus, thereby to bind together the royal
houses of Anatolia as surrogates for Roman suzerainty.

Archelaus, beneficiary of Antony, kept his throne through the favour
of Caesar Octavianus. Indeed, he would soon increase his holdings with
Roman encouragement. Archelaus obtained Cilicia Tracheia, parts of
the coast, and Armenia Minor by 20 B.c., a move to build a more solid
shield against Parthia.!9 The king experienced less success with his
subjects, some of whom lodged an accusation against him in Rome — to
no avail.20 And at some point Augustus was induced to install an
overseer in Cappadocia.2! Nevertheless, Archelaus’ connexions and
machinations kept him on his throne through the reign of Augustus.”

Deiotarus Philadelphus ruled Paphlagonia with Antony’s approval,
switched sides at Actium, and earned the gratitude of the conqueror.
Octavian confirmed him in power. The kingdom may have been
enlarged later with parts of Phazemonitis. Deiotarus enjoyed an un-
troubled dominion until his death in 6 B.c.%4

Amyntas of Galatia too changed allegiance hastily before Actium, and
profited. He remained sovereign in his realm and received further
territorial grants in Pisidia, Lycaonia, Isauria and Cilicia Tracheia.25 The
new dominions brought added responsibilities. Amyntas undertook to
subjugate the fiercely independent and troublesome mountain tribes
sheltered in the Taurus range and menacing the southern fringes of
Galatia. The king made admirable headway, up to a point, capturing a
number of mountain fastnesses. But terrain favoured the guerrillas.
Amyntas fell victim to the formidable tribe of the Homonadenses and

17 Strab. x1.2.11 (495C); X41. 3.29 (5 56C); Hoben 1969 (E 840) 47-5 3; Sullivan 1980 (E879) 915-22;
Roddaz 1984 (c 200) 463-8.

18 Strab. xi1.3.29 (5 56C); xi1.3.37 (5 $9-60C); Pani 1972 (C 295) 140-2; Cimma 1976 (D 120) 293,
a. 8.

19 Joseph. AJ xv.ros; Strab. xir.1.4 (535C); x11.2.7 (5 37C); x11.2.11 (§40C); x1v.5.6 (671C); Dio
Liv.g9.2; Hoben 1969 (E 840) 182-7.

2% Suet. Téb. 8; Dio tvit.17.3; Pani 1972 (C 295) 107-11.

21 Dio ivit.17.4—-5. Perhaps during Archelaus’ trial; Romer 1985 (c 302) 76-84.

2 Cf. Pani 1972 (C 295) 131-45; Sullivan 1980 (E 880) 1149-61; Romer 1985 (C 302) 84-100.

2% Strab. xi1.3.41 (562C). %* Magie 19)0 (E 853) 1283-4.

25 Strab. x11.6.3—5 (569C); x1v.5.6 (671C).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ASIA MINOR 153

was executed in 25 B.c.26 Augustus moved swiftly and decisively. He
would leave no vacuum in central Anatolia that might tempt marauders
or rebels. Galatia was annexed as a Roman province. The region
encompassed Isauria, Pisidia, Lycaonia and part of Pamphylia, in
addition to Galatia proper. It would henceforth come under the
supervision of a Roman governor.’ Reasons for Augustus’ sudden shift
of policy are not easy to discern. Amyntas had sons but Augustus
ignored their claims. It would be hazardous to infer that the princeps had a
long-standing and deliberate design to convert client states into pro-
vinces, once their rulers had prepared them for incorporation. Nor
would provincialization of the land provide the glory of imperial
expansion that came with conquest. An ad hoc decision seems more likely.
Death of the king at the hands of rebellious tribes threatened the region
and challenged the efficacy of Roman overlordship. Augustus would
now make a display of direct Roman rule. The new province included a
number of military colonies dispatched by Augustus to Pisidia. The
annexation of Galatia served to solidify the area, overawe recalcitrant
mountaineers, and provide a buttress for client princes in Pontus,
Paphlagonia and Cappadocia, as well as for the provinces of Bithynia and
Asia.

Augustus had no commitment to provincialization as a matter of
policy. In fact, he detached the area of Cilicia Tracheia from Galatia and
bestowed it upon Archelaus, the loyal ruler of Cappadocia.22 When
circumstances called for it, he would alter arrangements and reorganize
territory accordingly. The death of Deiotarus Philadelphus in 6/5 8.c.
gave occasion for incorporating his realm into the province of Galatia.
Three years later came a further addition to the province, the region of
Pontus Galaticus.?? A preserved oath of allegiance from Gangra under-
scores the new order: the inhabitants swore fealty to Augustus and
included his name among the gods and goddesses by whom the oath was
sanctioned.39 Improvisation rather than elaborate design appears to
characterize Roman decisions in Asia Minor. The Homonadenses had
brought about the demise of Amyntas and provided the impetus for
Provincialization. Yet Roman governors of Galatia, whose appoint-
ments began in 25 B.c., conducted no campaign against that people for
two decades. The tribe had presumably been quiescent in the mean time.
It can be inferred that Augustus ordered an offensive only when the
Homonadenses stirred trouble again. The legate P. Sulpicius Quirinius
headed forces that engaged the mountaineers, perhaps ¢. 5—3 B.C.,

2% Magie 1950 (z 853) 1303-4; Levick 1967 (E 851) 26-8; Hoben 1969 (E 840) 130-8.

27 Dio 1111.26.35; Strab. x11.5.1 ($67C); x11.6.5 (569C); x11.8.14 ($77C); Levick 1967 (E 851) 30-2.
% Strab. xiv.5.6 (671C); Dio Liv.g.2.

2 Magie 1950 (BE 853) 465-6, 1328-9; Sherk 1980 (E 875) 960-1. 3% OGIS 532.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

1§4 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

gradually reducing their strongholds and starving out the defenders, a
lengthy and arduous process.3! One other uprising demanded Rome’s
attention a few years later: the turbulent Isaurians challenged her
authority and had to be quelled in a.p. 6. The province had now been
effectively pacified .32

Elsewhere in Asia Minor petty dynasts ruled in cities or lesser
principalities. Some had served the cause of Antony and were removed,
others kept in place. And even where Augustus deposed a dynast he
might subsequently restore the dynasty. He left tyrannies in power in
Mysia, at Caranitis and Amasia, and in the Bosporan kingdom. He
removed rulers from Hierapolis Castabala in Cilicia Pedias and from
Olba in Cilicia Tracheia, only to reinstate the ruling houses later. At
Pontic Comana he overthrew one Antonian supporter and replaced him
with another. Tarsus, where Octavian replaced a client of Antony with
one of his own partisans, was exceptional rather than representative.
And in Commagene, Augustus expelled more than one dynast before
turning the principality back to a previous ruling line.#3 The ad hoc
character of these dispositions stands out clearly. Some changes took
place after Actium, and some dynasties suffered interruption. In general,
however, Augustus preferred continuity or reverted to earlier dynastic
houses which could bring experience and promote stability.

III. JUDAEA AND SYRIA

Syria held Rome’s principal military installation in the East. Three, later
four, legions were stationed there, a show of strength to Parthia, and a
garrison to intervene at need in Asia Minor or Palestine. Expansionism
was not the aim here, rather the maintenance of order and the entrench-
ment of control. Internal security took precedence.

Syria had become a Roman province after Pompey’s campaigns in the
6os and remained a centre for implementation of eastern policy. Antony
of course controlled it in'the 30s, and Octavian made certain to establish
his dominion there shortly after the fall of his rival. The governor of
Syria, Q. Didius, was among those who made timely transfer to
Octavian after Actium; and Octavian himself spent some time in Syria in
late 30 B.c. His presence alone underscored the importance of the area.*#
In the settlement of 27 B.c. Augustus acquired formal responsibility for
the province of Syria and thereby for Rome’s defence system in the East.
The princeps kept close surveillance on the region through his appoin-

3 Strab. x11.6.5 (569C); Tac. Ann. 111.48.2. Levick 1967 (E 851) 32-41, sees long-range design on
Augustus’ part; cf. 203-14. 32 Dio tv.28.3; Sherk 1980 (E 875) 970.

33 References and discussion in Bowersock 1965 (Cc 39) 46-51, 57-8. On Commagene, see
Sullivan 1977 (E 878) 775-83. #4 Dio 11.7.1-2, LV.18.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JUDAEA AND SYRIA 155

tees. Roman troops quelled an uprising of the Ituraeans in Lebanon. And
the loyalty of minor dynasts like Dexandros at Apamea helped keep the
region under control.35 Augustus gave his chief deputy M. Agrippa
general supervision of the East based on Syria in 23 B.C., an office he
discharged for ten years, though usually in absentia, with trusted legates
in place. A similar duty seems to have been exercised by Augustus’
grandson Gaius, in association with his eastern expedition c. 1 B.c., thus
reaffirming the central significance of Syria for Rome’s position in the
East.37

On the Syrian flanks Augustus relied on client princes to serve as
buffers and to cushion the province. The petty kingdoms of Emesa and
Ituraea provided protection against Bedouin tribes from the desert.38
And supervision over much of Palestine was entrusted to a remarkable
man, Herod the Great.

The extensive testimony of Josephus affords a more intimate glimpse
into the affairs of Herod than we possess for any other dependent ruler.
Herod has thus become the client prince par excellence, a prime exhibit for
the relationship between Rome and vassal kings.

This half-Jewish Idumaean had been a chief beneficiary of Antony,
confirmed and supported in his authority by the triumvir. And he sided
loyally with Antony right down to Actium itself. Herod was not at
Actium, engaged instead in fighting with the Nabataeans. But for
Herod, as for so many others, the battle represented a decisive turning
point. No pretence of hidden sympathies for Octavian was possible.
Herod sought out Octavian in Rhodes in 30 B.c. and took a straightfor-
ward line: the same sort of unswerving fidelity he had shown to Antony
he could now offer to Antony’s conqueror; he could be trusted to serve
Octavian’s interests — as he served his own. Octavian recognized the
mutual benefits inherent in this relationship, reaffirmed Herod’s royal
status and expanded his holdings along the coast, in Samaria, in the
Decapolis and around Jericho. Herod put his loyalty on display by
visiting Octavian in Egypt and accompanying the Roman on his return
trip as far as Antioch.*® The events of 30 B.C. set a pattern for the
relationship between princeps and client king.

Herod discharged or anticipated obligations. He supplied soldiers for
Aelius Gallus’ campaign in Arabia ¢. 26 B.c., refounded and renamed
cities in Augustus’ honour, dispatched two of his sons to Rome for their
education in 23 B.c., and had his subjects swear an oath of allegiance to

35 Crushing of the Ituraeans: ILS 2683; Dexandros and in general, Rey-Coquais 1978 (E 1054) 47—
9. *% Dio ii11.32.1; Joseph. AJ xv1.3.3.

37 Oros. vit.3.4. For the evidence on Roman govemors of Syria under Augustus, see Schiirer
1973 (E 1207) 2$3-Go.

38 Augustus appears to have deposed and later restored the dynasty of Emesa; Sullivan 1977 (E
1065) 210-14. % Joseph. AJ xv.183—-201, 218; BY 1.386—97.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

156 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

the emperor. And the king profited. Augustus enlarged his territorial
holdings twice more in the decade after Actium: in 23 B.c. Herod’s
friendship with the princeps’ son-in-law and chief helpmate M. Agrippa
only enhanced his status further. The king orchestrated an elaborate tour
and a lavish reception for Agrippa during his stay in the area in 15 B.C.
and performed numerous services for him ona mission to Asia Minor.4!
The tighter the bonds, however, the greater the dependency. The
kingdom of Herod was evidently not liable for tribute to Rome.‘? The
obligations were subtler and more ambiguous, and thereby, in some
ways, more demanding. Augustus gave to Herod some responsibility for
supervision in Syria, thus, no doubt, to co-ordinate efforts with the
princeps’ legate in that province.43 He also awarded to Herod the
privilege of appointing his own successor.*4 The princeps presumably
intended that gesture as a sign of esteem and an encouragement to
independent behaviour. But the very fact that such a privilege had to be
explicitly articulated is the most telling indicator of the true relationship.
And the outcome only intensified subordination. Herod more than once
thrust upon Augustus the burden of adjudicating disputes within the
royal family. The sordid tale of intrigues in the court, domestic discord,
and Herod’s morbid suspicions which led to the execution of three sons
need not be recounted here. The pertinent fact is that Herod declined to
settle matters even in his own household without seeking the emperor’s
directions. His reign was long and memorable — but always precarious.
Conflict between Herod and the Nabataeans led to recriminations in
Rome, as the king alternately fell out of and was restored into the favour
of Augustus.*5

Herod’s will, twice rewritten during his lifetime, drew Augustus still
further into the affairs of the realm after the Idumaean’s death in 4 B.c.
The document parcelled Herod’s holdings among three sons. But it also
provided for vast sums of money for Augustus, Livia, the imperial
children, amici and freedmen, and it further specified that none of the
Provisions could take effect without ratification by the princeps.46

“ Troops for Aclius Gallus: Joseph. AJ xv.3 17; the naming of Sebaste and Caesarea: Joseph. 4 J
xv.296, Xv.339; the sending of sons to Rome: Joseph. Aj xv.342; oath of allegiance: Joseph. AJ
XVIL42.

4 ‘Territorial acquisitions: Joseph. AJ xv.343-8, 360; BJ 1.398—400; Dio tiv.9.3; cf. Bietenhard
1977 (E 988) 238-40. Herod and Agrippa: Joseph. AJ xv.350, xv.361, xvt.12-16, xv1.86; BJ, 1.400.
Cf. Schalit 1969 (E 1206) 424-6; Smallwood 1976 (E 212) 86-90; Braund 1985 (c 254) 79—80, 85;
Roddaz 1984 (c 200) 450-5.

42 As argued by Schiirer 1973 (E 1207) 1.399-427; contra, Applebaum 1977 (E 1074) 373. But note
the cash gift on a trip to Rome in 12 B.c.; Joseph. AJ xv1.128.

43 Joseph. AJ xv.360; BJ 1.399. 4 Joseph. AJ xv.343, XVI.129.

45 Smallwood 1976 (E 1212) 96-104; Schiirer 1973 (E 1207) 3 20-6; Schalit 1969 (E 1206) 563-644;
Bammel 1968 (E 1083) 73—9; Piatelli (E 1189) 323-40; Bowersock 1983 (E990) 49-5 3; Baumann 1983

(E 1091) 221-37; and see below ch. 154.
Joseph. AJ xvit.146, xvi.188—go, 195; B/ 1.646, 1.664-5, 1.669.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JUDAEA AND SYRIA 157

Herod’s privilege of appointing a successor had thus been transformed
into a recommendation rather than a directive; Augustus would have the
final say. That clause invited discord. The sons of Herod brought
conflicting claims to Rome, complicated by a separate Jewish delegation
which requested abolition of the monarchy. Augustus decided matters
with even-handedness: he endorsed Herod’s territorial dispositions, in
effect dividing his realm into three parts, but withheld the royal title from
all three sons. Archelaus would rule Judaea, Samaria and Idumaea as
ethnarch, Antipas and Philip obtained the designation of tetrarch, the
one over Galilee and Peraea, the other over Batanaea, Trachonitis and
Auranitis. The will and its sequel allowed Augustus both to exercise
beneficence and to re-assert his ultimate authority.47 Further, the
princeps’ chief appointee in the East, P. Quinctilius Varus, the governor
of Syria, intervened with force to quell a Jewish rebellion which had
arisen in the wake of Herod’s death. The limits of autonomy gained clear
expression.*8

What Augustus gave he could also take away. The precedent of asking
the emperor to redress grievances created in Palestine had been firmly set
in the reign of Herod. A logical step followed in a.p. 6. Complaints
registered in Rome against the misrule of Archelaus led Augustus to
depose the Herodian dynast, banish him to Gaul, and convert his domain
into a Roman province. The smaller principalities under Antipas and
Philip remained ‘autonomous’, but the key districts of Judaea, Samaria
and Idumaea would now come under direct Roman rule, governed by an
equestrian prefect and under the general surveillance of the imperial
legate in Syria. A census directed by the Syrian legate P. Sulpicius
Quirinius marked the new order in A.D. 6. It signalled the imposition of
Roman taxes and the official subordination of Judaea.*9

Consolidation rather than expansion characterized Augustan policy in
Syria and Palestine. Syria contained the major Roman garrison in the
East and provided the pivot for the defence of Rome’s position and
enforcement of her authority. The history of Judaea under Augustus
exposed the fragility of ‘independence’ for client states which served as
buffers for Roman interests. Herod earned imperial favour by tying his
realm more closely to the emperor, thus bolstering power but increasing
dependence. The transition from client kingdom to province repre-
sented a logical stage in the development. Taxation and direct rule only
formalized a continuing process of implementing Roman authority in
the East.

47 Joseph. AJ xv11.219-49, XVU.300-23; BJ 11.14—-38, 11.80-100; Braund 1984 (c 254) 139-42.

43 Joseph. AJ xvi1.250-99; BJ 11.39-79.

# Joseph. AJ xvi1.342-4, xvIl.354—§; BJ 11.111-13, 1.117; Dio Lv.27.6; Pani 1972 (C 295) 133-7.
The census of Quirinius is wrongly dated to the reign of Herod by Luke 2:1-5. On the new
province, see Smallwood 1976 (E 1212) 144-36; Ghiretti 1985 (£ 1119) 751-66.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

158 4- EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

IV. ARMENIA AND PARTHIA

M. Antonius had invested heavily in warfare against Parthia. Contests
with the great eastern power entailed substantial costs in men and
prestige. Parthia had inflicted defeat upon Roman armies, and Rome’s
influence in Armenia had proved ephemeral. The humiliation left deep
scars. Standards of the Republic’s army captured at Carrhae and hostages
taken in Antony’s abortive campaign remained in Parthian hands.°?
After Antony’s demise, the burden of restoring Rome’s honour rested
with the victor of Actium. But Octavian resisted the temptation to
retaliate. More urgent tasks of consolidation took priority after Actium.
And the restraint set a pattern: the princeps recognized that prudent
diplomacy and discreet display of force were preferable to expensive and
hazardous ventures across the distant Euphrates. Indirect suzerainty in
Armenia and a modus vivendi with Parthia represented the means to
preserve prestige and protect security.

Octavian exercised caution from the outset with Parthia. Dynastic
rivalry, as so often, plagued the Parthian ruling houses. Even before
Actium Phraates IV and the pretender to his throne Tiridates both
sought to enlist Octavian’s assistance in their respective causes. Octavian
wisely refrained from taking action. After Actium, when Phraates
expelled his rival, Tiridates sought refuge in the Roman province of
Syria. Octavian permitted him to reside there, a useful card to play in
diplomatic games with Parthia, while also maintaining amicable rela-
tions with Phraates at an official level.5! In similar fashion, he declined
the request of the Armenian ruler Artaxias to restore his brothers, held as
hostages in Rome. They too would serve as insurance and potential
counter-weight. And he installed the Mede Artavasdes as king of
Armenia Minor, thus to provide further check on any Armenian
aspirations.>2

A reserved cordiality toward Parthia continued through the next
decade. In the mid 20s Tiridates left Syria and made his way to Augustus,
having in tow the young son of Phraates IV, whom he had managed to
kidnap. Phraates sent envoys to the emperor, asking for the surrender of
Tiridates and the release of his son. Tiridates, in turn, advertised himself
as philorhomaios and promised unswerving loyalty as client king if Rome
should put him on the Parthian throne. Augustus again delivered an
even-handed decision. He would neither turn over the rebel for
punishment nor promote his designs on Parthia. Tiridates remained in
Rome, his wants amply provided for, and his ambitions circumscribed
by Augustus’ needs. Phraates got his son back — a magnanimous gesture

50 On Antony and Parthia, see above, ch. 1.
31 Dio ut.18.2—-3. 82 Dio 11.16.2, LIv.9.2; Strab. x11.3.29 (555C); Magie 1950 (E 853) 443.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ARMENIA AND PARTHIA 199

by Augustus — but no more. Amicable relations held, so long as the
princeps could make the decisions.54

Restraint and quiet diplomacy kept the peace during the 20s. Other
matters occupied Augustus’ attention: the working out of constitutional
arrangements and the entrenchment of Rome’s position in the West. But
the princeps did not rest content with the status quo in the East. Parthia’s
retention of standards and captives taken from Roman armies remained
an open sore and an implicit denial of Rome’s omnipotence. The year 20
B.C. proved to be the year of reckoning. Augustus travelled personally to
the East, adjudicated disputes, made territorial dispositions and settled
internal quarrels in cities of Greece, Asia Minor and Syria. He further
exhibited the authority of the suzerain by reassigning lands to dynasts in
Cilicia, Emesa, Judaea, Commagene and Armenia Minor.™ The princeps’
presence in the Near East may have provided the occasion for upheaval
in Armenia. The citizenry, or a significant portion thereof, rose against
Artaxias II, protégé of the Parthian monarch, and requested a new ruler,
namely Artaxias’ brother Tigranes, then resident in Rome. Augustus,
who had given refuge to the brothers for just such a contingency, readily
complied. The emperor directed his stepson Tiberius to install Tigranes
at the head of a Roman army. Mobilization alone sufficed. The Arme-
nians assassinated Artaxias, and Tiberius could deliver Tigranes to a
vacant throne without use of force.55 Presentation of the event in Rome,
however, simulated military victory. The coinage blared slogans of
Armenia capta or Armenia recepta.>®

In the East Augustus affected war but practised diplomacy. The
celebrated arrangement with Phraates IV in 20 B.c. cannot be disasso-
ciated from the princeps’ presence in Syria and the settlement in Armenia.
Phraates yielded up at last the standards and captives held for a
generation as Parthian prizes, thereby allowing Augustus to claim credit
for wiping out a long-standing stain on Roman honour.5? Negotiations
had brought about that result. Phraates evidently received assurances of
non-interference in his own realm (the pretender Tiridates is not heard
from again), while Parthia acknowledged the Roman interest in Arme-
nia. The king allegedly supplied hostages to Rome as well. An informal
accord arose from the bargaining, perhaps even an overt acceptance that
the Euphrates would serve as boundary between the zones of

33 Just. Epit. xutt.5.6-9; Dio, tri.33.2; Aug. RG 32.1. Chronology is uncertain; cf. ¢.g.,
Debevoise 1938 (a 19) 136-7, Ziegler 1964 (c 327) 147, and, esp., Timpe 1975 (c 320) 157-60. On
Tiridates’ coinage, see Timpe, 1975 (C 320) 155-7. * Dio uiv.7, Liv.9.1-3.

55 Dio xtv.9.4-5; Vell. Pat. 1.94.4; Aug. RG, 27.2; Tac. Ann. 11.3; Strab. xvii.1.54 (821C);
Joseph. AJ xv.105.

% BMCRR, nos. 301-8; cf. Hor. Epist.1.12.26—7; Vell. Pat. 1.94.4; Chaimont 1976 (A 15) 73-5.

57 Aug. RG 29.2; Vell. Pat. i1.91.1; Dio L1v.8.1-2; Ov. Fast. v.579-84; Suet. Aug. 21.3; Suet. Tib.

9.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

160 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

influence.58 But here again Augustus proclaimed victory, conquest and
martial supremacy for consumption at home. The Res Gestae declared
that he had ‘compelled’ the Parthians to surrender trophies and beg for
Roman friendship. The Senate offered to vote a triumph, and a triumphal
arch was erected in the Forum. Numismatic representations repeatedly
called attention to signis receptis. And the central scene of the cuirass on
the Prime Porta statue depicted the transfer of the standards.59 Augustus
made the most of his diplomatic success. A compact of mutual advantage
and mutual agreement took on the glow of military mastery.

A sign of continuing cordiality between Rome and Parthia came in 10
B.c. Phraates IV sent four sons to live in Rome. The gesture did not
signify deference or subordination, as sometimes portrayed; rather, it
provided a means whereby the Parthian king could defuse opposition at
home and stabilize his hold on the throne. Augustus was pleased to
comply. He could both grant a favour to Phraates and take possession of
potentially valuable instruments of diplomacy.

Relations between the empires remained smooth and undisturbed for
nearly two decades. after Phraates relinquished the standards. Trouble
arose, as so often, in the client state and buffer region of Armenia. The
death of Augustus’ appointee Tigranes II c. 7 B.c. ushered in a turmoil of
which our sources preserve only a few confused fragments. A struggle
for the throne evidently gripped Armenia, pitting Tiridates III against -
another Roman nominee Artavasdes, and prompting the princeps to
dispatch Tiberius to settle affairs. But Tiberius, for motives that remain
forever hidden, abandoned his commission and took up residence in
Rhodes. Rome’s influence over subsequent events in Armenia suffered
sharp decline.®

The situation in Parthia soon complicated matters, dealing Roman
interests a further blow. Phraates IV perished, perhaps murdered, in 2
B.c., and his successor Phraates V (or Phraataces) took the occasion to
meddle in Armenia. Augustus could not permit Rome’s prestige in the
East to suffer further deterioration. His own prestige at home was at

588 Aug. RG 29.2; Strab. xvi.1.18 (748-9C); Vell. Pat. 11.100.1; Oros. vi.21.24. Parthia’s
acknowledgment of Roman interest in Armenia: Suet. Aug. 21.3; cf. Vell. Pat. .100.1; Eutrop.
vit.9. The Euphrates as boundary: Strab. xvt.1.28 (748C). Hostages to Rome: Suet. Aug. 21.3;
Eutrop. vit.g; Oros. vi.21.29.

59 Aug. RG 29.2; Dio ttv.8.1-3; BMCRE Augustus, nos. 410, 41z, 414-19, 421-3. The
propaganda may be reflected also in the report that Phraates gave up the standards out of fear of a
Roman invasion; Dio trv.8.1; Just. Epét. xut1.5.10-11.

6 Tac. Ann. 11.1; Strab. xv1.1.28 (748-9C); Aug. RG 32.2; Vell. Pat. 1.94.4; Joseph. AJ xviit.
41-2; Suet. Aug. 21.3. Cf. Braund 1984 (c 254) 12-13, rightly stressing that they should not be
considered hostages.

$1 Dio Lv.9.4~5; Tac. Aan. 11.4. The record is sparse and frustrating on this period. Numismatic
testimony helps only slightly; Chaumont 1976 (A 15) 75-7.

62 Dio. Lv.10.18; Vell, Pat. 11.100.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ARMENIA AND PARTHIA 161

stake. The princeps then staged a public demonstration to reassure the
citizenry that Roman power would again make itself felt, undiminished,
in the lands of the East. Augustus’ grandson (and adopted son and heir)
Gaius took command of troops to head for the Euphrates, intimidate
Parthia, and settle accounts in Armenia. The young prince received a
handsome send-off. Elaborate pageantry marked the occasion, with talk
in the air of conquest, vengeance against Parthia, new triumphs and
spoils for the imperial house, and expansion of the Roman empire.
Augustus’ intentions, in fact, were rather more modest. But public
perception, as ever, counted. Gaius took an extensive detour, to Arabia
and elsewhere, in part to add to his distinctions, primarily to show the
flag.4 News of his achievements and of his arrival in Syria had the
desired effect. Tigranes III of Armenia sent a conciliatory message to the
princeps, seeking Roman endorsement for his claims on the throne, and
received a friendly response. Phraataces also prepared to negotiate. His
letter to Rome probed for an accommodation, but simultaneously
requested the return of his brothers, now under the princeps’ protection.
Augustus fired off a sharp reply, demanding that Parthia refrain from
interference in Armenia and leaving off the royal title in his address, a
deliberate affront — not a slight on Parthian sovereignty but on
Phraataces’ legitimacy. The king responded in kind: his letter addressed
the princeps merely as Caesar and identified himself as ‘King of Kings’.
The exchange of messages plainly directed itself to a domestic constitu-
ency — on both sides. The whole sequence of events supplied more show
than substance. No fighting was necessary, not even a hostile confron-
tation. The encounter, when it came, was amicable and fruitful. It too
had been carefully programmed in advance. In a.p. 2 Gaius and
Phraataces, each with impressive and equal entourage, met on an island
in the Euphrates. Mutual pledges and a recognition of formal equality
ensued. The king dined with Gaius on Rome’s side of the river and then
Phraataces hosted a banquet on the Parthian side. The scene was well
orchestrated. Phraataces now officially acknowledged Rome’s interests
in Armenia and dropped his request for restoration of his brothers.
Augustus, in effect, consented to leave Phraataces undisturbed, renewed
amicitia, and implicitly designated the Euphrates as a frontier between
spheres of influence. But his retention of the Parthian princes left the
critical diplomatic leverage in his hands.6
The arrangement in A.D. 2 ought to have settled matters. But
63 Ov. Ars Am. 1.177-86, 1.201-12; cf. Dio Lv.10a.3; Hollis 1977 (B 86) 65-73; Syme 1978 (B 179)
8-11. Gaius’ appointment is recorded also by Tac. Aan. 11.4; Dio Lv.10.18—19; Vell. Pat. t.101.1.
Cf. Romer 1978 (C 300) 187-202, 1979 (C 301) 203-8.
65 Dio Lv.10.20-1, LV.10a.4; Vell. Pat. 1.101.1-3. Among modern discussions, see e.g., Ziegler

1964 (c 327) 53-6; Chaumont 1976 (A 15) 77-80; Romer 1979 (C 301) 203-4, 208-10; Pani 1972 (c
293) 45-6; Cimma 1976 (D 120) 324-8.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

162 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

Armenian affairs followed their own path, regardless of agreements
between Rome and Parthia. Tigranes III died, probably in A.D 3, setting
off a chain of events no longer recoverable in detail or in precise
sequence. Gaius installed a new ruler, the Mede Ariobarzanes, thus to
reiterate Rome’s role in the indirect governance of that client kingdom.
But Armenian nationalist sentiment resisted once more, and upheaval
followed in which Gaius himself suffered a wound that would prove
fatal. Two or three more changes of rulers came in Armenia during the
lifetime of Augustus. The princeps claimed credit for the appointments,
but the real extent of his influence cannot be ascertained. Internal
struggles for power in that land reduced it for a time to anarchy.®

Comparable struggles for the throne occurred in Parthia during the
final decade of Augustus’ reign. The princeps neither promoted nor
abetted them, but he did profit from them. In the midst of this turmoil, ¢.
A.D. 6, a delegation of Parthian leaders arrived in Rome to seek release of
Vonones, one of the sons of Phraates IV who had resided in Rome for
the past decade and a half, in order to install him as Parthian ruler. The
prospect appealed to Augustus who sent off Vonones with handsome
gifts — as if setting his own appointee on the throne of Parthia.$’
Augustus welcomed the opportunity to have an indirect hand in
ordering Parthian affairs — or at least to appear to be doing so. In fact, the
Roman connexions and upbringing proved to be more a liability than an
asset for Vonones. The Parthians themselves eventually found him
unacceptable, summoned Artabanus of the Arsacid line to the throne,
and expelled Vonones in a.p. 12. Augustus, who had played only a
passive role in the installation of Vonones, took no steps to support him.
It was not part of Rome’s policy to provoke Parthia; rather she aimed to
maintain her interests in Armenia and to keep Parthian influence on the
far side of the Euphrates. Those aims could even be seen as advanced by
the flight of Vonones: he made his way to Armenia and there took the
throne made vacant by recent upheavals. So, the Parthian prince, raised
in Rome, now held the crown in Armenia.® Such was the situation, quite
acceptable from the Roman vantage-point, at the death of Augustus.
The reliance on diplomacy, with occasional brandishing but only rare
exercise of force, continued as standard policy throughout most of the
Julio-Claudian era.

The pattern of the emperor’s policy in that region maintained
consistency throughout. He pursued the twin goals of hegemony via

6 Aug. RG 27.2; Tac. Aan. 1.4; Vell. Pat. 1.102.2; Flor. 11.32; Dio tv.10a.5-7. See the
reconstructions of Chaumont 1976 (a 15) 80-3, with numismatic testimony; Pani 1972 (C 295) $5~
64; Cimma 1976 (D 120) 328-9.

67 Aug. RG 33; Tac. Aan. 11.2; Joseph. AJ xv1it.43—6; cf. Suet. Tid. 16.

6 Joseph. AJ xviti.47-50; Tac. Ann. 11.2~4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SPAIN 163

client rulers in Armenia and amicable relations, including mutually
acknowledged spheres of influence, with Parthia.6° The behaviour was
marked by restraint, but the public posture was one of aggressiveness.
So Augustus presented endorsement of a client king as capture of
Armenia, recovery of the standards as Parthian submission, and the
assignment of Gaius as an imperialist venture. The princeps knew the
limits of Rome’s effective authority in the East and kept within them. But
keeping up appearances was no less important than keeping within
limits. Augustus projected the image of a conqueror who extended
Roman sovereignty to the East.

V. SPAIN

The reputation of the princeps also played a major part in determining the
extension of imperial power to north-west Spain. That region, home of
the fierce Cantabrians and Asturians, remained outside Rome’s control,
despite more than two centuries of Roman presence in the Iberian
peninsula. Augustus led his forces in person, the last time he was to do
so. The matter was evidently deemed to be of high importance.

The campaigns proved long and arduous, as so often in Spain.
Augustus headed the effort in one year only, 26 B.c., but resistance
continued at intervals until 19 B.c., perhaps even beyond. The princeps
was determined to subjugate the area.

Strategic motives do not account for the thrust. Roman commanders
regularly claimed triumphs in Spain — six of them had been awarded in
the decade just prior to Augustus’ invasion itself. Raids by the Canta-
brians upon neighbouring tribes might have supplied a pretext. But
hardly enough to warrant the emperor’s own presence at the head of the
army. Nor do economic motives provide an answer. Spanish mines and
other resources had long been exploited by Rome; the wealth of the
north west was an afterthought rather than an incentive.’° Our sources
offer little by way of explanation: Cantabrian harassment of neighbours,
Augustus’ intent to regulate affairs in Spain, or simply irritation that
after 200 years a corner of the peninsula still held itself independent of
Roman rule.7! Concrete goals take second place here; propaganda
counted for more.

The provinces of Spain (Baetica was soon to be removed) were among
the overseas territories assigned to Augustus at the beginning of the year

69 Sherwin-White 1984 (A 89) 322-41, sees a more menacing posture by Augustus toward
Parthia. % Cf. Flor. 11.33.60.

1 On the triumphs, see Fasti Triumph. for the years 36, 34, 33,32, 28, and 26; IIta/ xm p. 570; cf.
also Dio u1.20.5; [LS 893. Raids by Cantabrians: Flor. 11.33.47; regulation of affairs: Dio urt1.22.5;

subjugation of independent peoples: Oros. v1.21.1. For discussions of these motives, see Schmitt-
henner 1962 (C 305) 43-53; Santos Yanguas 1982 (E 237) 7—10, with further literature.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

164 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

27 B.c. He announced his resolve to bring them firmly under Roman
authority. Since most of the peninsula already fell in that category, the
intended targets were plainly the Cantabrians and Asturians. Tales made
the rounds of their ferocious mature and fanatic resistance to any
infringement on autonomy. Augustus threw open the gates of Janus’
temple, a symbolic means to proclaim a crusade against the foe. And his
personal leadership of the army would reinforce martial credentials, a
check on actual or potential rivals with military claims of their own.”? As
the opening of the gates declared Augustus’ purpose, so their closing
advertised its accomplishment. The princeps made certain to have that
‘ceremony conducted to commemorate his success in 25 B.c., only the
fourth time in Roman history that Janus’ gates were shut — but the
second time in five years.73 The occasion in 29 had marked official
termination of civil war; this time the ritual signified pacification of the
empire. Augustus declined to celebrate a triumph, a display of moderatio,
but accepted a more enduring distinction: the privilege of wearing
garlands and triumphal dress on the first day of every year.74 He plainly
intended to make the event memorable, a fact underscored by the
composition and publication of Augustus’ own autobiography. The
work concluded with the successful close of the Cantabrian War.75 It
memorialized a capstone of the princeps’ career. In light of later
accomplishments, the bellum Cantabricum et Asturicum may not have
seemed so momentous. Augustus gives it only brief mention in the Res
Gestae, among a number of regions which he brought to submission.”
The earlier and more emphatic presentation, however, is reflected in the
Livian tradition and picked up by Velleius Paterculus: after two
centuries of bloodshed in that violent and savage land, Caesar Augustus’
campaigns imposed a lasting peace that not only crushed armed
resistance but even wiped out brigandage.” The conquest of north-west
Spain rounded off control of the entire peninsula.

As in the case of Parthia, battlefield exploits in Spain did not match
their publicity in Rome. Confusion in the sources prevents a confident
reconstruction of events, geography, or chronology. It is clear, in any
case, that Augustus’ personal intervention was anything but decisive.
The princeps was at Tarraco at the beginning of 26 B.c., there to
inaugurate his eighth consulship.”8 He participated in the campaign of
that year, but in what area and for how long remain unknown. Florus

72 The distribution of provinces in Dio xit1.12.4—-5; cf. Syme 1934 (C 313) 300. Augustus’
announced resolve for subjugation: Dio uim.13.1. The ferocity of the foe: Strab. m1.4.17-18 (164—-
5C); Oros. vi.21.8. The opening of the gates: Oros. vi.z1.1.

73 Dio iiit.26.5; Oros. vi.21.11; Aug. RG 13.

74 Dio u111.26.5; cf. Flor. 11.33.53; Barnes 1974 (c 2$3) 21. 75 Suet. Aug. 85.1.

7% Aug. RG 26.2-3; cf. 29.1.

7 Livy, xxvut.1z.12; Flor. 11.33.59; Vell. Pat. 11.90.24. 7 Suet. Aug. 26; Dio Liit.2z3.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SPAIN 165

and Orosius record only Roman victories in Cantabria, with the princeps
directing a three-pronged attack from the base camp at Segisamo: the
Romans inflicted a defeat on their foes at Bergida (or Velleia), starved
them out at Mt Vindius and captured the city of Aracelium (or
Racilium). Names of the sites and their locations have long been
disputed. Nor is it clear whether the campaign of 26 confined itself to
Cantabria or included Asturia. The question connects to a further one:
did the three Roman assaults occur serially or simultaneously? No
definitive answers are possible.’? Cassius Dio’s account, however,
discloses setbacks: the Romans made little headway under Augustus,
illness felled the princeps who withdrew to Tarraco, and successes came
only through the exertions of C. Antistius Vetus, legate of Tarraconen-
sis.° Augustus, it may be safely surmised, did not return to the
battlefield after the campaigning season of 26 B.c. Roman forces
penetrated into Asturia and gained a dramatic victory over besieged and
desperate Spaniards at Mt Medullius in 26 or 25.8! A concerted assault by
the Asturians followed in 25, nearly overwhelming Roman forces in the
region, thwarted only by a last-minute betrayal of their plan anda march
to the rescue by the army of P. Carisius, legate of Lusitania. Carisius’
capture of the Asturian stronghold Lancia concluded the fighting.
Romans had gained the upper hand, but the struggle had been bloody
and the cost in lives heavy.®

The victories prompted Augustus to direct the closing of Janus’
doors, an announcement of thorough pacification, and generated the
award of triumphal honours. The princeps even authorized the establish-
ment of a veteran colony, colonia Augusta Emerita (Mérida), to mark the
settled status of the land.83 An ode of Horace welcomed home the
returning conqueror, comparing him to Hercules and rejoicing in a new
security. But the conquest was superficial and the celebration prema-
ture. Both Cantabrians and Asturians exploded into revolt as soon as
Augustus left the province in 24, thus exposing the fragility of his
achievement. The legate of Tarraconensis, L. Aelius Lamia, resorted to
brutality in suppressing the rebellion.85 Two years later the Cantabrians

7 Flor. 11.33.48-50; Oros. vt.21.3-5. Among numerous scholarly discussions, see Magie 1920(c
285) 325-39; Syme 1934 (C 313) 293-317; Schuten 1943 (E 238); Horrent 1953 (c 276) 279-90;
Schmitthenner 1962 (c 305) §4—Go; Syme 1970 (C 314) 83-103; a recent summary of scholarship in
Santos Yanguas 1982 (E 237) 16-26. See also Santos 1975 (C 303) 531-6; Lomas Salmonte 1975 (£
230) 103-27; Solana Sainz 1981 (E 239) 97-119; Tranoy 1981 (£ 244) 132-44; Martino 1982 (c 287)
41-104. 8 Dio rit.25.5—8; cf. Flor. 11.33.51; Suet. Ang. 81.

8 Flor. 11.33.50; Oros. vt.21.6-8. The location of Mt Medullius, whether in Asturia or in
Callaecia, is uncertain; Santos Yanguas 1982 (£ 237) 18-26; Martino 1982 (c 287) 105-24.

82 Flor. 11.33.54-8; Oros. vt.21.9-10; Dio Liit.25.8. For the deployment and identification of the
legions, see testimony collected by Lomas Salmonte 1975 (£ 230) 135—9; Jones 1976 (E 226) 48-51;
Solana Sainz 1981 (E 239) 120~42; Santos Yanguas 1982 (E 237) 26-45. 83 Dio uit.26.1.

% Hor. Carm. 1.14; cf. tv.14.50. A darker interpretation of the poem by Sholz 1971 (c 307) 123-
37. 85 Dio Litt.29.1-2. For the legate’s name, see AE 1948, 93.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

166 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

rose against their new governor, C. Furnius, and the Asturians against
the increasing cruelty of Carisius, bringing still more ruthless repression
and subjugation.® Yet another insurrection by the redoubtable Canta-
brians in 19 B.c. provoked the dispatch of M. Agrippa himself who
subdued them, but only at heavy cost and severe losses, declining even to
accept the triumph voted him at Augustus’ urging.8? Agrippa’s
campaign which flushed the Cantabrians out of their strongholds and
compelled them to settle in the plains finally brought a measure of
stability to the region.88 The princeps was able to make a more peaceful
tour of Spain in 15-14 B.C., organizing colonial foundations and
exhibiting generosity.®9

Here as elsewhere propaganda and reality diverged. Augustus entered
Spain to claim victory and announce pacification. And so he did. His
autobiography saluted the achievement, Velleius Paterculus embellished
it, the tradition followed by Florus and Orosius reiterated it. The
conquest of north-west Spain rounded off Roman suzerainty in the
Iberian peninsula. But the real victory did not match Augustus’ boast. It
came slowly, a bloody and brutal process that endured well beyond the
princeps’ declaration of success. The Ara Pacis was duly decreed to herald
Augustus’ return from Spain. Not, however, in 25 B.c. when Janus’
doors were closed and triumphal honours bestowed; rather in 13 B.c.
after more than a decade of intermittent insurrection, costly casualties
and terrorism.

VI. AFRICA

In Africa entrenchment of control rather than expansionism predomi-
nated. The region served as an important granary for Rome and its
security held a place on the imperial agenda. The provincia Africa, once
the realm of Carthage, had been in Roman hands for a century. Julius
Caesar added to the empire’s holdings, annexing the kingdom of
Numidia, henceforth Africa Nova, with the former province becoming
Africa Vetus.® The fall of Sextus Pompeius in 36 B.c. brought both
provinces under Octavian’s authority. He strengthened Roman presence
in both, sending new settlers to Carthage in 29 B.c. and to Cirta in 26
B.c.°! Confidence in their security allowed him to transfer responsibility
for the area, whether as one or as two provinces, to the Senate in the
dispositions of 27 B.c.

% Dio Liv.5.1-3. 37 Dio tiv.11.2-6; cf. Roddaz 1984 (c 200) 402-10.

8 A minor rising was quelled in 16 B.c.; Dio Liv.20.3.

8 Dio Lrv.23.7, LIV.25.1, LIv.43.3; Aug. RG 12.2.

® Dio xtvut.9.4; App. BC#. 1v.5 3; Pliny, HN v.4.25.

% Carthage: Dio Lir.43.1; App. Pan, 136; Citta: AE 1955, 202. % Dio Litt.12.4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AFRICA 167

Not that calm had descended altogether. Nor did Rome abandon
aggression and content herself with consolidation. A series of procon-
suls earned triumphs ex Africa, five of them in the period 24-19 B.c.%
Details of the campaigns escape us for the most part, as do motives,
location and the identity of the foe. Evidence does not permit characteri-
zation of them either as defence of the frontier or as extension of empire.
The southern boundaries of the provinces were fluid. One can hardly
draw a distinction between protection of Roman interests and intimida-
tion of semi-nomadic tribes. The /egio III Augusta remained as a
continuing presence even after the Senate took official responsibility in
27 B.c. Of the triumphs recorded, details survive only for the campaign
of L. Cornelius Balbus who gained his reward in 19 B.c. Balbus, a friend
and loyal lieutenant of Augustus and a man experienced in Africa, drove
deeply into the territory of the Garamantes, the restive Berber people
who dwelled south of the Roman province. Pliny describes the triumph,
with a catalogue of the towns and tribes whence came the spoils
displayed by Balbus. The extent of his victories indicates carefully
planned campaigns with a number of columns to penetrate the present
Fezzan and its environs. Balbus’ well-earned triumph suggests a syste-
matic thrust to intimidate the Berber. And Augustus could take credit
for his subordinate’s accomplishment. Virgil’s homage to the princeps’
imperialism makes special mention of the subjugation of the
Garamantes.™4

The intimidation apparently took effect. Two decades passed with no
evidence of trouble from the nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes on the
fringes of the province. The stationing of /egio III Axgusta at Ammaedara
no doubt helped to keep matters under control.°> Troubles did not
recommence until ¢. A.D. 2: another imperator, L. Passienus Rufus, gained
triumphal honours for victories in Africa.%° The triumph presupposes
rebellion and upheaval. And other fragmentary evidence confirms it: the
Gaetulians and Musulamii in the region of the Syrtes engaged in guerilla
warfare against Roman rule and against Rome’s commanders, until
subdued in a.p. 6 by Cossus Cornelius Lentulus who would pass to his
son the commemorative title of Gaetulicus.” It may have been during
these same years that the Garamantes rose again, together with the

93 Fasti Triumph. for the years 34, 33, 28, 21, 19.

% Virg. Aen. v1.792-5. The conquests of Balbus are recorded by Pliny, HN v.35-7. See the
exhaustive reconstruction by Desanges 1957 (c 262) 1-43; cf. Romanelli 1959 (£ 760) 176-81; Rachet
1970 (C 297) 70-4; Gutsfeld 1989 (E 742) 26-30.

% Cf. Romanelli 1959 (E 760) 186-7; Rachet 1970 (c 297) 74.

% Vell. Pat. 11.116.2; cf. ILS 120, 8966.

7 Vell, Pat. 11.116.2; Flor. 11.31.40; Dio Lv.28.3—4; Oros. v1.21.18. L. Cornelius Lentulus mav
have been among the Roman generals who perished at the hands of the rebels; Just. Inst. 11.25. See,
in general, Romanelli 1959 (E 760) 181~6; Bénabou 1976 (E 715) 61-5; Gutsfeld 1989 (E 742) 31-9.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

168 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

Marmarides, providing occasion for another Roman military success,
that of Sulpicius Quirinius, who with modesty uncharacteristic of
imperatores, declined the honorific name of Marmaricus.% Testimony is
thin and woefully inadequate. But it is plain that the stability imposed by
Balbus’ successes did not endure through the reign of Augustus. Native
resistance to Roman rule resurfaced when opportunity arose, a periodic
rejection of the pax Augusta.

Roman influence, limited on the southern borderlands, spread along
the Mediterranean coast of Africa. The ruler of Mauretania, Bocchus,
died in 33 B.c. and Octavian took charge of his kingdom, keeping it out
of the hands of any native prince and transforming it into a direct Roman
dependency. Precisely how the region was administered in subsequent
years remains obscure. Mauretania does not appear among the provinces
enlisted on Octavian’s side in 32 B.c., nor among those assigned in the
settlement of 27 B.c.! The nature of its governance eludes inquiry, but
Rome directly or indirectly, took responsibility for it. In 25 B.c.,
however, the arrangement gave way toa new solution: Augustus turned
the realm over to Juba II, son of the former king of Numidia whose
dominion had been annexed by Caesar.!9! The transfer had perhaps been
anticipated from the start, or else Augustus gradually recognized the
undue burden of extending Roman resources to administer north Africa
all the way to the Atlantic. In any event, the scholarly Juba, now
accorded a new throne and assigned new duties, accepted the role of
loyal and dependent client.102

The princeps, however, did not pin his faith entirely upon the client
king in Mauretania. Nor exclusively on military force in the border
regions of Africa Vetus and Africa Nova. Augustus embarked on a
systematic policy of colonization. In addition to restocking Carthage and
Cirta, he planted three or four colonies in Africa Vetus, at least two in
Africa Nova, and twelve in Mauretania. And he further settled veterans
and other colonists in rural districts, the pagi outside the towns.193

Roman presence in north Africa increased markedly under Augustus.
A garrison at Ammaedara, military action in the frontier zones, a
dependent ruler in Mauretania and, perhaps, twenty colonial founda-
tions all reinforced that presence. The need to secure an area which

9% SEG rx.6.63; Flot. 11.31.41. The date is quite uncertain; Rachet 1970 (C 297) 77, n. 4.

® Dio xx1x.43.7. 100 Aug. RG 25.2; Dio 1.6.3—4, LUIL.12.4-7.

101 Dio ii11.26.2; Strab. v1.4.2 (288C); xvit.3.7 (828C). It is unlikely, despite Dio, 11.15.6, that
Numidia had been restored to Juba II in the meantime and was now exchanged for Mauretania. See
the arguments of Romanelli 1959 (£ 760) 156-8; Ritter 1987 (C 299) 137-42.

102 On Mauretania between 33 and 25 B.c., see Pavis d’Escurac 1982 (c 296) 219-25; Mackie 1983
(E753) 333-42 — highly conjectural. On Juba, see Romanelli 1959 (£ 760) 162—74; Pavis d’Escurac
1982 (C 296) 225-9.

103 Evidence and discussion in Romanelli 1959 (£ 760) 187-226; Bénabou 1976 (£ 715) 50-7;
Kienast 1982 (c 136) 395—7; Pavis d’Escurac 1982 (C 296) 229-30; Mackie 1983 (E 753) 332-58.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE ALPS 169

served as an important source of grain supplied prime motivation. But
the measures also provoked resentment and retaliation, guerrilla warfare
and disruption by native peoples. The shoring up of Roman authority
had at the same time generated challenges to that authority and stirred
sentiments that would lead to even more explosive reaction in the reign
of Augustus’ successor.

VII. THE ALPS

The Alps loomed over northern Italy, a haven for fierce tribes and
violent folk who might menace the Roman hold on Gaul and disrupt
communications from Italy. For Augustus, ready access through that
barrier and containment of restive tribes who could obstruct movement
were important desiderata. And he made certain to achieve those goals.
That larger motives held — a prelude to comprehensive conquests in the
Balkans and Germany — would be a hasty conclusion and premature
judgment.

The young triumvir recognized early the importance of controlling
the Little and Great St Bernard passes, the routes to Helvetia and the
Upper Rhine. His officer Antistius Vetus attacked the Salassi in 34 B.c.,
tough warriors who inhabited the higher reaches and represented
constant danger to that region. Initial efforts miscarried, as the Salassi
first surrendered and then expelled a Roman garrison with scorn and
glee. The imperial legate Valerius Messalla retaliated a few years later,
but success again was short-lived. Subjugation of the recalcitrant Salassi
came only in 25 B.c. when Augustus’ appointee Terentius Varro forced
them to capitulate and sold the able-bodied into slavery. The military
colony of Augusta Praetoria (Aosta) soon rose on the site of Varro’s
camp and facilitated Roman access to central Gaul.'%

Determination to command the Alps did not slacken thereafter.
Military installations gradually multiplied in strategic places during the
next decade: Zurich, Basel, Vindonissa, Oberwinterthur and else-
where.'05 That provincial penetration prepared the way for outright
conquest.

Campaigns began in earnest in 17 or 16 B.c. when P. Silius Nerva,
proconsul of Illyricum, subdued two Alpine tribes, the Camunni and the
Vennii, the first at least and perhaps both in the region between Como
and Lake Garda.!% Roman sources, of course, held the enemy respon-

100 App. I//. 17; Dio xuix. 34.2, XLIX.38.3, LI1I.25.2—5; Strab. 1v.6.7 (205—6C).

105 Wells 1972 (2 601) 40-6; Frei-Stolba 1976 (E 616) 350-5.

106 Dio ttv.20.1. Debate continues over the identity and location of the Vennii. If they are
identified with the Vennonetes of the upper Rhine, then Silius’ assaults were quite wide-ranging; cf.

van Berchem 1968 (£ 605) 4-7; Wells 1972 (£ 601) 63—6. But the matter remains uncertain; Overbeck
1976 (E 633) 665~8; Kienast 1982 (c 136) 293; Waasdorp 1982/3 (E 639) 39-40.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

1790 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

sible for provoking the conflict. More probably, it represents a stage in
Augustus’ drive to bring the Alpine regions under Roman dominion. It
can hardly be coincidence that a two pronged assault followed in the next
year of 15 B.c., headed by the princeps’ stepsons. Tiberius marched
eastwards from Gaul, Drusus northwards through the Brenner and
Reschenscheideck passes to the valley of the Inn. Blame was once again
fastened upon the foe: Dio describes the Raeti of the central Alps as
savages who plundered Gaul and northern Italy, preyed upon travellers,
and murdered all male captives, even unborn babies divined to be
male.!07 But the Roman purpose went beyond retaliation. Silius’
campaign had served as prelude; Drusus and Tiberius then carried out a
systematic design, moving into Raetia from two directions and with
various columns emerging at different points simultaneously.!°8 Augus-
tus determined to clear out hostile elements in the central Alps and to
extend Roman control throughout the Alpine regions. The brothers
achieved their goals, subduing the formidable Raeti and Vindelici of
eastern Switzerland, the Tyrol and southern Bavaria.!° Roman domi-
nion in the Alps would be secure.

The victories of Augustus’ stepsons were followed in 14 B.c. by
subjugation of the Ligurians and annexation of the Maritime Alps.1!°
The native dynast Cottius gained recognition as praefectus to rule over
the Cottian Alps in Roman interest.!!! Occupation of strategic sites in the
lands of the Raeti and Vindelici came in subsequent years. Augustus
stationed two legions in the area and appointed an equestrian prefect to
make Raetia an administrative unit of the empire, thus bringing under
control all the major passes of the central Alps and allowing Roman
influence to stretch through the Voralpenland to the Danube. Strabo
attests to peaceful acquiescence by the once savage tribes in Roman rule
and taxation a generation later.!!2

The Alpine campaigns in 16 and 15 B.c. included fighting against
peoples further east, branches of the Norici, inhabitants of the regaum
Noricum that linked Raetia to Pannonia.!!3 That fighting later served as
pretext for Roman occupation of Noricum. At what point the region
became formally annexed remains in dispute. But a Roman presence in
the land under Augustus and as consequence of the Alpine conquests
admits of little doubt. Noricum, a generally peaceful acquisition,

107 Dio LIv.22.1-2; cf. Flor. 11.22. 18 Dio trv.22.3—4; Vell. Pat. 11.95.1-2.

109 Dio Liv.22.3-4; Vell. Pat. 11.95.1-2; Strab. 1v.6.9 (206C); Suet. Aug. 21; Tib. 9; Flor. 11.22;
Livy, Per. 138; Consolatio ad Liviam, i5—16, 175, 385-6. Cf. the discussion of Christ 1957 (c 259) 416-
28; Waasdorp 1982/3 (E 639) 40-7; Sch6n 1986 (E 635) 43-56. A summary in Drack and Fellmann
1988 (E608) 22-5. 110 Dio tiv.24.3. '!! ILS 94. On his family, see Letta 1976 (c 283) 37-76.

M2 Strab. rv.6.9 (206C). For the occupation and administration of Raetia, see Wells 1972 (£601)
67-89; Overbeck 1976 (E 633) 668-72; Laffi 1975-6 (E 627) 406-20.

113 Dio Ltv.20.2; Strab. 1v.6.8-9 (206C); Flor. 1.22 (inaccurate).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE BALKANS 17!

supplied a vital communication between the forces in Raetia and the
army of Illyricum.1!4 Roman influence now spread all along the middle
Danube.

What prompted pacification of the Alps? A long-range imperialist
plan is often conjectured: the Alpine campaigns merely set the stage for
major offensives against Germany, the expansion of Roman power
across both the Rhine and the Danube to effect the subjugation of that
land all the way to the Elbe.!!5 Perhaps. But that ambitious scheme need
not have been in prospect at the time of the Alpine conquests. Other
motives sufficed. The opening of the Great St Bernard and the route
through Helvetia gave swifter access from Italy to the Rhine and thus
greater protection to Gaul. Reduction of Raetia and occupation of
Noricum provided essential links between legions on the Rhine and the
armies of Illyricum.!!6 The Upper Danube as yet contained no fortresses,
a zone of influence, not a fixed frontier.1!7 Ease of communications
rather than the prospect of further expansion may have been the
immediate stimulus.

Concrete objectives coincided with political motives and public
relations. Augustus utilized the Alpine campaigns to hone the talents
and advance the claims of his stepsons. The advertisement of victory
came in varied forms and reached a wide constituency. Horace sang of
the exploits in two carmina, celebrating Drusus’ routs of Alpine tribes
and Tiberius’ decisive conquest of the Raeti.!!8 The Consolatio ad Liviam,
composed later in the reign of Augustus, also extolled the accomplish-
ments of the brothers and the thorough defeat of the barbarians.!!9 A
monument was erected to commemorate these events, the Tropaeum
Alpium, installed at La Turbie in the Maritime Alps and listing no fewer
than forty-five tribes brought under subjection by the princeps.!20 And
Augustus boasts in the Res Gestae that he had pacified the Alps all the way
from the Adriatic to the Tuscan Sea — adding the questionable corollary
that every campaign had been legitimate and justified.!2! The princeps, as
ever, cultivated the image of the successful and rightful conqueror.

VIII. THE BALKANS

Strategy and politics combined to motivate Roman action in Illyricum.
Octavian recognized the region’s importance at an early stage and led the

14 Vell. Pat. 1.39.3; Dio, L1v.z0.2; Festus, Brev. 7. Alfoldy 1974 (E 652) 52-6, is too confident in
setting annexation in 15 B.c.; so also Winkler 1977 (E 709) 197-9; Kienast 1982 (c 136) 297. By
contrast, Kneiss] 1979 (c 280) 261-72, goes too far in denying any occupation before Claudius.

5 See, esp., Kraft 1973 (A 53) 1, 181-208; cf. also Wells 1972 (E601) 70; Kienast 1982 (c 136) 297.

416 Cf. van Berchem 1968 (E 605) 8-9; Christ 1977 (C 260) 188-9.

"7 Christ 1957 (c 259) 425-7. 8 Hor. Carm. 1v.4.17-18, IV.14.7-19.

"9 Consolatio ad Liviam 15-16, 175, 384-6. 12 Pliny, HN 11.136-8. 121 Aug. RG 26.3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

172 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

campaigns in person during the triumviral period. That proved to be just
a prelude. Major expansion took place between 13 and 9 B.c., and then
the imposition of a new and more permanent arrangement after
suppression of the Pannonian revolt in a.D. 9. Augustus prepared the
ground for two provinces, Dalmatia and Pannonia, extended Roman
control to the Danube, and secured the land route between northern
Italy and the Balkans.

The result had not been forecast from the outset. Octavian’s thrust
into Illyricum from 35 to 33 B.c. had more specific ends in view. He
looked to his own needs — and to those of his soldiers. The rugged lands
across the Adriatic would provide good training and discipline, a
hardening of the sinews that might otherwise grow soft with idleness.!22
Weapons would now be trained on the barbarian, a conspicuous turning
away from the civil strife that exhausted and demoralized the troops.
They could look forward to enrichment from the spoils of the enemy, so
Octavian alleged. Campaigns against foes of the empire would restore
morale to the forces and allow their commander to claim leadership in
the national interest instead of a factional struggle.!23 The memoirs of the
princeps expounded at length on the Illyrian adventure, reproduced in
part by the historian Appian a century and a half later. They provided
due justification for the war: Illyrians had periodically plundered Italy,
they had damaged the cause of Iulius Caesar, had destroyed the armies of
Gabinius and Vatinius in the gos, and held the captured standards of
Roman legions — enough reason for retaliation and restoration of
national honour.!24 A harsher assessment comes from the pen of Cassius
Dio, drawing on a tradition outside Augustus’ memoirs. Dio notes
correctly that no Illyrian provocation prompted the war: Octavian
lacked legitimate complaint and sought pretext to give practice to his
legions against a foe whose resistance was likely to be ineffective. !25

Neither the cynical judgment nor the self-serving explanation gets to
the heart of the matter. Octavian needed to enhance his military
reputation, an effort to match the accomplishments of his partner and
rival Antony. It is no accident that Octavian took conspicuous personal
risks and twice suffered injury in Ilyricum. Those badges of courage
could be useful. And upon completion of the contest he delivered a
speech to the Senate making pointed contrast between Antony’s idleness
and his own vigorous liberating of Italy from incursions by savage
peoples.!26

Larger strategic considerations have also been postulated. Perhaps
Octavian sought to secure Italy to the north east in order to prevent a

122 Vell. Pac. 11.78.2. '3 App. BCi. v.128.

124 App. If. 12-13, 15, 18; BCiv. v.14; cf. Dio xLix. 54.2. 125 Dio xirx.36.1
126 App. Ill. 16, 27; Suet. Aug. 20; Pliny, HN vit.148; Flor. 11.25; Dio xttx. 35.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE BALKANS 173

march by Antony via that route, as had once been contemplated by
Philip V and Mithridates, or else to seize the area in preparation for a
future offensive against his fellow triumvir. Or perhaps Octavian already
contemplated a broad strategic design that would push the borders of
Illyricum to the Danube and forge a link with imperial defences on the
Rhine.!27 But military conflict with Antony was not yet imminent in 35;
nor had any eastern ruler yet employed such a path to invade Italy. As for
the eventual push to the Danube, Augustus himself ascribes that plan to
the campaigns of his stepson Tiberius more than two decades later.
Octavian had more immediate needs: establishment of a military
reputation through punishment of tribes that had sullied Roman
honour. He could thus contrast solid accomplishment with the sloth of
Antony. Octavian would unfurl the Roman standards regained from the
barbarian. And he would suggest even greater conquests in store for the
future: victories in Illyria, it was reported, might lead to bold offensives
against Dacians and Bastarnae.!28 Not that Octavian actually considered
such offensives at this time. But here, as elsewhere, he sedulously
advanced the pose of the conqueror.

Actual accomplishments in the Illyrian War of 35 to 33 B.C. were
modest. Octavian opened the fighting in 35 B.c. with a thrust against the
lapodes, bringing their forces to surrender, and besieging their principal
city and citadel at Metulum which was soon destroyed by fire.!29 Roman
armies pressed on to assault Segesta (Siscia) at the confluence of the Save,
blockade the city, and force it to submission. Octavian could take pride
in the achievement and returned to Rome for the winter, intending to
resume operations in I]yria in the following spring.'*© That next season,
however, saw him transfer attention to Dalmatia. Talk of advance
against Dacia was evidently given up — or never meant seriously.
Octavian did not intend to go beyond the Save. Instead, he could earn
further laurels by punishing the tribes that had defeated Roman armies
and held Roman standards. The princeps’ forces stormed the Dalmatian
stronghold of Promona and destroyed Synodium at the edge of the
forest where Gabinius’ troops had been cut down. Early in the next year,
33 B.c., the chastened and desperate Dalmatians, cut off from outside
supplies, yielded up themselves and the Roman standards, pledged
payment of arrears in tribute, and vowed obedience to Roman power.
Other tribes also offered submission, and Octavian brought the three-
year Illyrian War to a conclusion.'3!

Territorial gains were relatively limited. But territory had not been the

127 On the motives, see Syme 1971 (£ 702) 17, 137; Wilkes 1969 (z 706) 48-9. A healthy scepticism
is expressed by Schmitthenner 1958 (c 304) 193—200.
1% Aug. RG 29.1, 30.1; App. I//. 22; Strab. vis.s.2 (313C). 129 App. il, 18-21.

130 App. Ill. 22-4; Dio xL1x.3 7.1—xLIx. 38.1.
131 App. If. 23-8; Dio xi1x. 38.3—4, XLIx.43.8; Strab. vit.5.5 (315C).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

174 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

objective. Octavian had driven as far as Siscia on the Save and displayed
Roman power to the Dalmatians, thus retaliating against peoples who
had raided Roman territory or vanquished Roman troops in the past.
What mattered was the presentation of events in Rome. Octavian spoke
to the Senate and rattled off the names of nearly thirty tribes which his
forces had coerced into submission, surrender and payment of tribute.
He proudly set up the recovered standards in the portico of Cn.
Octavius, thus linking his success to earlier republican victories. And he
elevated the prestige of his family through the award of statues and the
privilege of tribunician sacrosanctity for Livia and Octavia. Propaganda
value, as so often, counted for more than tangible achievement. !32
Another barbarian people also held Roman standards in their posses-
sion: the Bastarnae on the Lower Danube. They had captured the
trophies from a defeated Roman army thirty years before. Octavian
would restore Roman honour here as well. The proconsul of Macedonia,
-M. Licinius Crassus, marched north in 29 B.c. to engage the Bastarnae.
who, it was reported, had crossed the Haemus mountain range and had
overrun parts of Thrace wherein dwelt allies of Rome. Crassus con-
ducted campaigns over a two year period, driving back the Bastarnae,
gaining victories over other Thracian tribes from the lower Danube,
including the Moesi, the Getae and perhaps the Dacians, slaying a prince
of the Bastarnae in hand to hand combat, and regaining the Roman
eagles. He celebrated a well-earned triumph in 27 3.c.!33 Nothing
suggests that these campaigns actually extended the boundaries of
Macedonia. But the punishment of unruly tribes and the recovery of lost
military emblems served to demonstrate and reinforce Roman authority.
Major advance in the region awaited a decade and a half. The
provincial distributions of 27 B.c. assigned responsibility for Dalmatia
and Macedonia to the Senate, two separate and independent proconsular
commands. That formal situation remained unchanged through the 20s
and for some years thereafter. But the advantages of a link between these
domains and a push to the Danube that would control the land route
from northern Italy to the lands of the East became increasingly evident.
Restive Pannonian tribes attacked Istria in 16 B.c., Thracians ravaged
Macedonia, and an uprising in Dalmatia had to be quelled in the same
year. The Pannonians rose again in 14 B.c., calling forth yet another ad
hoc suppression.'+4 Augustus now made plans in earnest for subjugation.

132, Announcement of tribes subjugated: App. [//. 16-17. The standards: App. I//. 28; cf. Dio
xLIx.43.8. Honours for Livia and Octavia: Dio xitx.38.1. The political implications are rightly
noted by Schmitthenner 1958 (c 304) 218-20, 231-3. Useful summaries of the campaigns can be
found in Mécsy 1962 (E 675) 538-9; Wilkes 1969 (E 706) 49-57. Further bibliography in Roddaz
1984 (C 200) 140-5.

133. The campaigns are recorded in detail by Dio 1.2 3-7; cf. Flor. 11.26; Livy, Per. 134-5; Danov
1979 (E 660) 123—7. For the triumph, see ILS 8810. 14 Dio Liv.20.2—3, LIV.24.3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE BALKANS 175

M. Vinicius, probably proconsul of Illyricum, undertook operations in
14 B.c., but Augustus soon entrusted overall direction of the war to
Agrippa with broad powers, a maius imperium, in the following year.'35

The princeps obviously took the matter very seriously. After Agrippa
died in 12 B.c., he appointed his stepson and new son-in-law Tiberius to
the post. More than just suppression of tribal incursions was at stake
here. Roman forces advanced against the peoples between the Save and
the Drave, presumably the war-like Breuci. Tiberius, with the aid of the
Scordisci who had already been brought under Roman authority, earned
triumphal honours for a vigorous campaign against Pannonians in 12
B.c. and then continued against both Dalmatians and Pannonians in 11.
The operations evidently gave Rome control of the Save valley and
allowed for the initial penetration of Bosnia.!% Parallel campaigns were
conducted in Thrace where L. Piso subjected hostile tribes in three years
of fighting and secured Roman mastery by 11 3B.c.!37 The Augustan
regime had now made a major commitment in the Balkans. The former
proconsular command of Illyricum came directly under Augustus’
authority, to be governed by the princeps’ legates. It encompassed an area
that would soon stretch from the Adriatic to the Danube.'38 Tiberius led
campaigns for two more seasons in 10 and 9, reducing tribes that resisted
domination, pacifying the region, and winning an ovatio. Augustus
himself paid signal tribute to his stepson’s achievements in the Res
Gestae: he had subjugated the previously unconquered peoples of
Pannonia and extended the frontier of Illyricum to the banks of the
Danube.!39

Evidence largely fails for the next fifteen years. Those years, it may be
presumed, constituted the time of real pacification, the securing of the
middle Danube, and the intimidation of tribes beyond it in order to
assure control of the frontier. Augustus’ legate Sex. Appuleius com-
pleted coercion of the Pannonians in 8 s.c. Excursions across the
Danube followed in subsequent years: L. Domitius Ahenobarbus
resettled the Hermunduri as a check on the Marcomanni and even
brought his troops to the far side of the Elbe; epigraphic testimony
records another Augustan legate, perhaps M. Vinicius, who routed the
Bastarnae and entered into relations with a number of trans-Danubian
tribes; Aelius Catus transplanted 50,000 Getae from the far side of the

135 Vell. Pat. 11.96.2; Flor. 11.24.8; Dio trv.28.1.

136 Dio LIv.31.2—4, Ltv.34.3; Vell. Pat. 1.96.3; Flor. 1.24.8; Suet. Tid. 9; Festus, Brey. 7; Frontin.
Str u.t.1s.

137 Vell. Pat. 11.98.1-2; Dio trv.34.5—7; Flor. 11.27; Danov 1979 (£ 660) 129-31. On Roman
connexions with friendly Thracian dynasts, see Sullivan 1979 (£ 698) 189-204.

1388 Dio LIv.34.4.

18 Aug. RG 30.1; Dio iv.36.2, Lv.2.4; cf. Vell. Pat. t1.90.1. On the operations from 16 to 9 B.c.,
see Syme 1971 (E 702) 1822; Mocsy 1962 (£ 675) 540-1; Wilkes 1969 (E 706) 63-5.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

176 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

Danube to Thrace, where they took on the name of Moesians; and Cn.
Cornelius Lentulus successfully drove Dacians and Sarmatians back
from the vicinity of the Danube, thus to solidify further Rome’s hold on
the river.'4 A legionary command was installed in Moesia during these
years.!41 Augustus boasts hyperbolically of smashing the Dacians and
compelling them to submit to Roman orders, a claim echoed but
modified by Strabo.'42 The situation seemed secure.

But that confidence proved to be premature. In a.p. 6 Tiberius
assembled troops for a decisive thrust against the Marcomannic leader
Maroboduus in Bohemia. The Roman imperator summoned recruits
from the ostensibly compliant Illyrians for the purpose. The assemblage
itself, however, gave the indigenous forces a sense of their own strength
and numbers. National pride came to the surface, intensified by resent-
ment at harsh exactions of tribute by Roman officials and the fierce spirit
of a new generation of Illyrian warriors. Bato, a chieftain of the
Daesitiates in central Bosnia, took the lead in whipping up hostility. And
the rising of the Daesitiates was soon matched by rebellion of the Breuci
in Pannonia, headed by Pinnes and another Bato. Thus erupted the great
Pannonian revolt which would endure from A.D. 6 to 9 and nearly shake
the empire to its foundations. Suetonius labelled it, without much
exaggeration, the most serious external threat to Rome since the war
with Hannibal.'43

The rebels assaulted legionary detachments and massacred Roman
merchants. The Breuci headed for the key Roman garrison at Sirmium
and would have taken it but for the timely arrival of A. Caecina Severus,
legate of Moesia who turned back the Pannonian threat while suffering
heavy losses. Tiberius immediately cancelled operations against Maro-
boduus and dispatched the Illyrian legate M. Valerius Messalla to secure
the other critical Roman fortress at Siscia which guarded the route to
north-eastern Italy. The rebel forces in Pannonia and Dalmatia had been
slow to combine efforts; otherwise, the entire Roman position in
Illyricum might have collapsed. As it was, the insurgents controlled
most of the territory from the Save to the Adriatic and had gathered
forces, so it is reported, of 200,000 infantry and 9,000 cavalry. Caecina
Severus returned to his own provincia of Moesia to protect it against
incursions of Dacians and Sarmatians. Sirmium was still vulnerable, and

140 Appuleius: Cassiod. Chron. 11.35; Ahenobarbus: Dio Lv.10a.2; Tac. Aan. 1v.44; M. Vinicius
(?): ILS 8965; cf. Syme 1971 (E 702) 26-39; Mécsy 1962 (E 675) 543-4; Aelius Catus: Strab. vir.3.10
(303C); Lentulus: Flor. 11.28-9; Tac. Aan. 1v.44; Aug. RG 31.2; Syme 1971 (E 702) 40-72.

141 Dio Lv.29.3, LV.30.4; Syme 1971 (E 702) 50-8.

142 Aug. RG 30.2; Strab. vit.3.11, vit.3.13 (304-5C). Defeat of the Dacians may have been
spurred by a Dacian invasion of 10 B.c.; Dio Liv. 36.2.

143, Suet. Tid. 16. For the origins and occasion of the conflict, see Dio Lv.28.7, LV.29.3, LV1.16.3. A
less satisfactory account in Vell. Pat. 11.109.5—110.5. Cf. Dyson 1971 (A 25) 250-3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE BALKANS 177

Tiberius could not afford to move far or fast from his base at Siscia.
Grave anxieties gripped Rome. Augustus, now severely alarmed,
ordered extraordinary levies, impressed veterans back into service,
imposed new taxes, called upon the patriotic instincts of senators and
equites, and enrolled freedmen into the ranks as reinforcements for the
army of Illyricum. The princeps sent recruits with Velleius Paterculus
who would then gain an eyewitness’s view of the war for his future
history, dispatched additional troops with a trusted member of his own
household, young Germanicus the nephew of Tiberius, and even moved
his personal entourage to Ariminum where he could keep in closer touch
with developments.!#4

Rebuilding of the Roman position began in earnest in A.D. 7.
Reinforcements from Italy brought Tiberius’ army up to five legions. M.
Plautius Silvanus led two legions from the east and joined forces with
Caecina’s army of Moesia. Both commanders, together with the Thra-
cian cavalry under Rhoemetalces, now headed west to link with
Tiberius. They survived near calamity at the Volcaean Marshes, an
ambush by troops under the combined leadership of the two Batos. Old-
fashioned discipline, as Velleius describes it, repaired ranks that were
broken, stemmed panic, and turned defeat into victory.'45 By the winter
of A.D. 7/8 an immense assemblage of ten legions had converged at
Siscia, swollen further by seventy auxiliary cohorts, fourteen cavalry
units, and no fewer than 10,000 veterans recalled to the colours from
Italy — the largest military concourse since the civil wars. Yet the giant
gathering once effected, Tiberius almost immediately dissolved it again,
escorting the reinforcements from Moesia and the east back to Sir-
mium.'46 A perplexing decision. Perhaps the assemblage had been
Augustus’ idea, the product of impatience and anxiety, without consul-
tation of Tiberius.!47 More likely, it was a tactic of intimidation: such a
concentration of power could overawe the resistance of rebels.

The manoeuvre achieved its end. In the following year, without
further show of force, the Pannonians offered full surrender and received
terms. A final flurry occurred late in the year, when the Dalmatian
chieftain Bato captured and killed his treacherous Breucian namesake
and rekindled revolt among the Pannonians. But the Roman garrison at
Sirmium under Silvanus crushed the uprising and restored order. The
Save valley was once again safely in Roman hands.!*8

Dalmatia remained to be reduced in A.D. 9. Tiberius returned to Rome
in the winter, but three commanders held responsibility for completing
the reconquest: M. Lepidus, left as legate in Siscia, Silvanus at Sirmium

4 Dio tv.29.3—-31.4, LV.34.3; Vell. Pat. 11.110.3-112.2.
45 Vell. Pat. 11.112.3-6; Dio Lv. 33.3. 146 Vell. Pat. 11.113.1-3.
447 So Koestermann 1953 (c 281) 362-3. 148 Vell. Pat. 11.114.4; Dio LV.33.1-2, LV.34.4—-7-

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

178 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

and Germanicus on the Dalmatian coast itself. But the combination
proved inadequate. The inexperienced Germanicus made little headway,
and Augustus sent back Tiberius himself to resume command. That
decision sealed the fate of Dalmatia. Lepidus forced his way through
hostile territory to join with Tiberius. And the redoutable Bato, though
eluding capture and resisting siege, finally came to terms — and was
spared by the admiring Tiberius.'4°

Four bloody years had been consumed in suppressing this mighty
challenge to Roman authority.!5° Military success, as usual, would be
translated into political distinction. Augustus exploited the victory to
bestow honours on his family. Germanicus made public announcement
of the result. The princeps and his stepson both celebrated triumphs in
A.D. 10 and received triumphal arches in Pannonia, as well as other
distinctions. Germanicus gained triumphal insignia and praetorian rank.
And even Tiberius’ son Drusus, though he played no part in the war,
obtained the right to attend the Senate and to hold praetorian status as
soon as he reached the quaestorship.'5! The geopolitical consequences,
however, were greater still. The process of consolidation and organiza-
tion lay in the future. But conquest was complete. Roman power
extended to the middle Danube, a critical link in the connexion that now
ran from northern Italy through the Balkans to the provinces of the East.
At some time after A.D. 8 the princeps set in place the two great military
commands that would become the new provinces of Dalmatia and
Pannonia.'52 It was a solid and enduring achievement.

IX. GERMANY

The confrontation of Rome and Germany created high drama in the time
of Augustus — and heated debate in the modern era. What were the
objectives of Rome’s crossing the Rhine, how far did she intend to go,
and how firm a hold did she expect to exercise? The penetration of
Germany was no isolated event. It must be considered in close conjunc-
tion with Roman presence in Gaul.

Caesar had conquered Gaul but had not fully pacified it. Octavian
took the matter in hand, an item of the first priority in consolidation of
the western empire. In the early 30s B.c. he commissioned his most
trusted collaborator, M. Agrippa, to campaign against rebellious
peoples in Aquitania in the south west and against tribes in the north

169 Dio tvt.11—-16; Vell. Pat. 11.115.1-4. See the analysis of Koestermann 1953 (c 281) 368-76;
Wilkes 1965 (E 705) 111-25.

180 On the war, in general, see the thorough treatment of Koestermann 1953 (c 281) 345-78; also
Mocsy 1962 (E 675) 544-8; Wilkes 1969 (E 706) 69-77.

131 Dio Lv1.17.1-3. 152 Cf. Braunert 1977 (C 255) 215-16.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GERMANY 179

east.153 Unrest persisted. The years 31 to 28 B.C. witnessed three
uprisings requiring Roman military action: against the Morini, the
Treviri and the Aquitani, each issuing in triumphs or imperial salu-
tations for the victorious commanders.!™4 Those episodes drove home
the lesson that the policing of Gaul could not be divorced from control
of Germanic tribes across the Rhine. Caesar had experienced the
problem, having faced large scale migrations by Germans like the
Sugambri, the Usipetes and the Tencteri who dwelled near the river and
who felt the pressure of the potent Suebi.!55 It is noteworthy and
revealing that Gallic disturbances in the 30s and early 20s B.c. repeatedly
involved assistance or provocation from peoples across the Rhine.
Agrippa had to fight on the other side of the river; the Treviri got
support from trans-Rhenane tribes; and the Suebi came to the aid of the
Morini.!5¢ Augustus effected a settlement in Gaul in 27 B.c., conducting a
census and perhaps implementing the tripartite division of the land.!5’
But administrative arrangements did not avert upheaval. The legate M.
Vinicius brought an army against Germans in retaliation for their
murder of Roman citizens who practised trade in their lands.'58 Agrippa
returned to Gaul in 20 and 19 B.c. and encountered a familiar scene:
conflicts among the Gauls compounded by intervention of the Ger-
mans.!59 The situation had changed little from the time of Caesar’s Gallic
Wars a generation earlier. The Rhine was an artificial and largely
ineffectual barrier. Germanic peoples dwelled on both sides of the river.
It represented at best a frontier zone rather than a demarcated border.
And harassment of Roman Gaul by trans-Rhenane intruders was a
continual menace.

Diplomatic measures proved unsatisfactory. Rome reached friendly
accords with the Chatti and perhaps others, thereby to use them as
counter-weight to other peoples who might enter the Roman pro-
vince.'6 To no avail. In 17 or 16 B.c. Sugambri, Usipetes and Tencteri
spilled over the Rhine, plundered Gallic territory, ambushed Roman
forces, and inflicted an ignominious defeat on the legate M. Lollius.'¢!
The princeps himself hastened to Gaul in 16 B.c. to repair the damage.
The cost in prestige outweighed any material losses. By the time
Augustus reached Gaul, the Germans had withdrawn and there was no
one to fight. A peaceful settlement followed.'® But it is no accident that

183. App. BC. v.92; Dio xLvuit.49.2—3; Eutrop. vit.5; Roddaz 1984 (c 200) 66-73.

154 Dio L1.20.5, L1.21.5-6; App. BCiv. 1v.38; Tib. 1.7.3—12, 11.1.31-6; ILS 895; CIL 12.50, 77.
58 Caes. BGall. 1v.1ff; cf. Timpe 1975 (c 321) 125-9.

156 Dio xLvill.49.2—-3, L1.20.5, L1.21.6.

'57 Dio Limt.22.5; Livy, Per. 134; cf. Drinkwater 1983 (£326) 20-1, 95. 158 Dio L111.26.4-5.
189 Dio Liv.11.z. On Agrippa’s activities, see Roddaz 1984 (C 200) 383-402.

1 Dio Liv.36.3; Timpe 1975 (C 321) 135-9.

‘81 Dio Liv.z0.4—-5; Vell. Pat. 11.97.1; Suet. Aug. 23; Tac. Aan. 1.10; Obsequens, 71.

182 Dio Liv.tg.1, Liv.20.6; Vell. Pat. 11.97.1; Suet. Aug. 23.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

180 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

Augustus appeared in the region, prepared to lead forces in person. A
Roman defeat, however minor, could not be tolerated. It was essential to
present a bold face to the public. Hence the appearance of the emperor in
the field. The image of Roman authority had to be advanced.

Augustus stayed in the West for three years.!63 That period marks the
beginning of a more aggressive Roman posture to assure ascendancy in
Gaul and to intimidate tribes across the Rhine. It represents a logical
time for establishment of legionary forts on the river. Six camps
eventually arose on the lower and middle Rhine: Fectio, Noviomagus,
Vetera, Novaesium, Oppidum Ubiorum and Moguntiacum.'64 Once
again the close association of this development with new administrative
arrangements to strengthen Roman governance in Gaul is plain.'%

The princeps’ stepson Drusus took over in Gaul when Augustus
returned to Rome in 13 B.c.'® In the following year Drusus launched the
first four major offensives against tribes on the far side of the Rhine. The
campaigns have stimulated speculation on Roman motives and inten-
tions for conquest to the Elbe or beyond. It would be more prudent to
recognize the continued connexion between suppression of Gallic unrest
and the terrorizing by Rome of Germanic peoples who had contributed
or might contribute to that unrest. The sources make the connexion
explicit. Drusus established an altar of Augustus at Lugdunum (see p. 98
above for the view that this was in 10 B.c.), thereby to rally Gallic loyalty
to the regime. But his conduct of a census, presumably associated with
financial exactions, sparked new upheaval, aggravated by interference
from German tribes on both sides of the Rhine.'67 Drusus’ campaigns in
Germany, therefore, grew out of familiar circumstances. They intensi-
fied pressure on the Germans in order to strengthen the Roman
dominion in Gaul.

The campaigns spread over four years, gathering in momentum, and
displayed might to the barbarian to an extent not previously exper-
ienced. Drusus began in 12 8.c. with assaults on the Sugambri whom he
caught on the Gallic side of the Rhine and on the Usipetes across the
river. He proceeded to an amphibious operation along the North Sea
coast, gaining the Frisii as allies and invading the land of the Chauci.168
Notable advances came in the following year. Drusus subdued the
Usipetes, bridged the Lippe, and passed through the land of the

163 Dio Liv.25.1.
164 For the archaeological evidence— which cannot fix specific dates — see Wells 1972 (E 601) 94—
148; cf. Schénberger 1969 (E 591) 144-7.

65 On Augustus’ activities in Gaul, see Frei-Stolba 1976 (E 615) 355-65. 16 Dio Liv.25.1.
167 Livy, Per. 139; Dio tiv.32.1; ILS 212.11, lines 36-9; Timpe 1975 (c 321) 142; Dyson 1973 (c
266) 155-6.

168 ‘Dio Liv.32.1-3; Livy, Per. 139. The campaign probably included a defeat of the Bructeri on
the Ems; Strab. vit.1.3 (2g0C).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GERMANY 181

Sugambri into that of the Cherusci as far as the Weser river. The coming
of winter again induced him to return to the Rhine, but not before he
installed a garrison on the junction of the Lippe and the Eliso, perhaps at
Haltern, and another near the Rhine in the region of the Chatti. The
achievements earned Drusus triumphal honours.169

Augustus himself accompanied Drusus to Gaul in winter 11/10 B.c.,
there to inspect the altar at Lugdunum and to observe the German
situation. The linkage between defeat of Germans and consolidation of
Gaul remained close. Another season in 10 B.c. saw Drusus gain further
victories over the Sugambri and Chatti who abandoned lands awarded
them in an earlier diplomatic settlement by Rome.!7°

More far reaching successes marked the fourth and final campaign in 9
B.C. Drusus commenced the invasion, it appears, from Moguntiacum,
attacked the Chatti once more, defeated the Marcomanni on the upper
Main after stiff resistance, turned northward to the realm of the Cherusci,
crossed the Weser again, and got as far as the Elbe. That, however,
proved to be the terminus. Drusus turned back, suffered the misfortune
of a broken leg, and died en route to the Rhine.!7! What stayed his advance
at the Elbe is unspecified. But Augustan policy demanded that the best
face be placed upon the events. Drusus, like Alexander the Great at the
Hyphasis, set up trophies at the Elbe to signify progress rather than
setback. And a story conveniently surfaced that Drusus was halted by a
vision delivering divine pronouncement about the fate of the mission.!72
The gods, not any Roman failures, accounted for withdrawal. And
elaborate honours were showered upon the memory of Drusus and his
deeds.'73 Whatever the reality of the situation, Augustus, here as
elsewhere, insisted on the appearance of success.

What had been accomplished? Drusus’ campaigns had been invasions
rather than conquests, the Germans intimidated rather than subdued.
But these were more than hit and run raids. Drusus left tangible
reminders of Roman power. Cassius Dio reports two garrisons planted
in 11 B.C.; Florus, with obvious exaggeration, speaks of numerous forts
and guard posts installed all along the Maas, the Weser and the Elbe.'”4
Archaeology discloses the existence of important legionary bases at
Haltern and Oberaden on the Lippe, and other garrisons elsewhere, but
does not permit a precise chronology that would fix them to the time of

169 Dio Ltv.33.1~5; Livy, Per. 140; Flor. 11.30.23; Suet. Claud. 2.1. On Haltern, see Wells 1972 (E
601) 163-211.

1% Dio Liv. 36.34; Oros. vi.21.15; Livy, Per. 141. A speculative reconstruction by Timpe 1967 (c
316) 296-300.

IN Dio tv.1.2-5; Flor. 11.30.23-—7; Strab. vit.1.3 (291C); Livy, Per. 141; Suet. Claud. 1.2.

12 Dio Lv.1.3; ef. Suet. Claud. 1.2. On the tale and its significance, see Timpe 1967 (c 316)
289-306. "3 Dio tv.2.1-3; Livy, Per. 142; Suet. Claud. 1.3-5; Tac. Arn. 11.7.

1% Dio Lrv.33.4; Flor. 11.30.26.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

182 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

Drusus’ incursions.'75 Nor can one assume that the garrisons signalled a
permanent and a full-scale occupation. Tiberius rushed to the scene upon
the death of his brother and, if Tiberius’ panegyrist Velleius Paterculus is
to be believed, he overran all of Germany as victorious commander in 8
B.C. without sustaining any losses. Other sources supply some specifics:
Tiberius induced all Germans but the Sugambri to agree to peace terms,
but Augustus then refused to embrace a peace without the Sugambri —a
convenient pretext to keep options open and maintain a presence in
Germany. Tiberius proceeded to deport 40,000 Germans to the Gallic
side of the Rhine.'76 The exhibition of Roman power is clear, a necessary
demonstration in the wake of Drusus’ death. But it is rash to speak of
Germany organized as a province of the empire, with Roman authority
extended to the Elbe.!”” In fact, even Velleius, who would hardly
minimize Tiberius’ accomplishment, speaks only of reducing Germany
‘almost to the form of a tributary province’. And Florus acknowledges
that Germans were defeated rather than subdued.!78 Rome held only
selected portions of German soil.!79 As so often, the appearance of
Roman success outstripped the reality of Roman control.

The need to maintain a posture of strength in Germany continued to
mark Augustan policy. Analtar to Augustus was erected among the Ubii
who had settled on the Rhine bank, at what later became Colonia
Agrippina (Cologne). Appointment of a priest to the cult from the
Cherusci was clearly meant to signal German allegiance to the princeps
and his regime.'®0 Periodic Roman military incursions gave repeated
reminders of the empire’s authority. Tiberius snuffed out some minor
troubles in 7 B.c.!8! At some time before a.D. 1 L. Domitius Ahenobar-
bus undertook a more significant venture. He took troops from the
Danube, encountered the tribe of the Hermunduri whom he settled on
the upper Main, an area evacuated by the Marcomanni, crossed the Elbe
without any resistance, made alliance with people on the further bank of
that river, and planted a new altar to Augustus on the site, a symbol that
loyalty extended even to that distant region. The idea that this expedition
prepared the way for a Roman invasion of Bohemia is unnecessary
conjecture. It supplied a means to reassert Roman influence without
taking undue risks. Domitius even became embroiled in intra-tribal
disputes among the Cherusci. But he made sure to winter his men back in

175 Schénberger 1969 (BE $91) 147-9; Wells 1972 (£ 601) 161-233.

176 Dio Lv.6.2-3; Suet. Ang. 21; Tib. 9; cf. Tac. Ann, 11.26, x11.39.

17 As, e.g., Wells 1972 (E 601) 156-7; Kienast 1982 (c 136) 300-1.

178 Vell. Pat. 1.97.4; Flor. 11.30.29-30. Florus’ claim, 11.30.22, that Augustus sought to make
Germany a province in order to honour Julius Caesar is not to be taken seriously.

179 Dio tv1.18.1; cf. Christ 1977 (C 260) 189-98.

190 Tac. Arn. 1.39, 1-57-2. 181 Dio Lv.8.3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GERMANY 183

the safer quarters on the Rhine.'82 Domitius’ successor M. Vinicius
found it necessary or advantageous to engage in hostilities with German
peoples beginning in A.D. 1, a massive war, so it is described. The sources
preserve no record of location or details. But Vinicius did obtain
triumphal honours and a public decree inscribed with his exploits.'®3 The
presentation at home of continued success and ascendancy in Germany
remained consistent.

An ostensibly more vigorous expedition was launched in a.D. 4q.
Tiberius had come back into his stepfather’s good graces, gained
adoption by him, and was forthwith appointed to Germany. His /audator
Velleius Paterculus describes the events with excessive adulation. Tears
of joy allegedly filled the eyes of soldiers in greeting the much decorated
commander under whom many had already served in various sectors of
the empire. Tiberius, so Velleius reports, subdued the Cananefates,
Attuarii and Bructeri, regained dominion over the Cherusci, crossed the
Weser, and set up winter quarters at the source of the Lippe.'* Velleius
waxes even more rhetorical on the second campaigning season in A.D. §:
Tiberius’ armies traversed all of Germany, beat down the Chauci once
again, snapped the power of the fearsome Langobardi, and then capped
his success by having his fleet sail up the Elbe. In two years, according to
Velleius, Tiberius had been victorious everywhere, his army unscathed.
The victories left nothing unconquered in all Germany except the
Marcomanni.'85 Exaggeration is patent. The outbursts of Velleius do
not warrant full confidence. Among other things, he calls Tiberius the
first Roman general to reach the Elbe and the first to winter in
Germany.'8¢ Cassius Dio provides a curt and sober assessment: Tiberius
advanced to the Weser and the Elbe, but accomplished nothing worthy
of record.'8? Only peace treaties resulted, whereas the legate got
triumphal honours and the princeps and his son were hailed as impera-
tores.'88 The contrast between appearance and reality persists.

An assault on the Marcomanni was next on the Roman agenda. They
had abandoned their ancestral lands in the Main valley under pressure of
Drusus’ attacks in 9 B.c. and had now carved out a kingdom under their
formidable ruler Maroboduus.'® The realm sat in an area bordering on

18 Dio Lv.10a.2—3; Tac. Aan. v.44. The conjecture on Domitius’ purpose in Syme 1934 (c 312)
365-6. The starting-point of his expedition remains in dispute; Syme 1934 (c 312) 365-6; Timpe
1967 (c 317) 280-4; Wells 1972 (E G01) 158-9; Christ 1977 (c 260) 181-3. 183 Vell. Pat. 11.104.2.

184 Vell. Pat. 11.104.3-105.}.

$85 Vell. Pat. 11.106.1—3, 11.107.3, 11.108.1. Similarly, Aufidius Bassus, in Peter, HRR, Il, 96, 3.

186 Vell. Pat. 11.105.3, t1.106.2.

'87 Dio Lv.28.5; cf. Timpe 1967 (c 317) 284-88. Note that after the campaigns of a.p. 5 Tiberius
evidently returned to winter quarters on the Rhine; Vell. Pat. 11.107.3. 8 Dio tv. 28.6.

189 Vell. Pat. 11.108.1-2; Strab. vit.1.3 (290C); Tac. Germ. 42; cf. Flor. 1.30.23-4; Dio tv.1.2. On
Maroboduus, see Dobias 1960 (c 264) 15 5-66.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

184 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

regions subject to or linked with Rome: Pannonia, Noricum and
neighbouring German tribes. Maroboduus brought some of these tribes
under his authority, and induced others into alliance. He made no moves
to threaten Rome, but his position and his prestige represented an
embarrassment.'® The Roman high command designed a two-pronged
Operation in A.D. 6. Tiberius was to lead the army of Illyricum from
Carnuntum on the Danube, and the legate Sentius Saturninus would
bring the Rhine legions from the west through the land of the Chatti,
thus to close the vice on Maroboduus.!%! The plan never came to
fruition. News of a Pannonian revolt arrived to panic Augustus and
cancel the assault on Bohemia when the two Roman armies were within
days of effecting a junction.!°? Peace negotiations ensued instead, and
Maroboduus became a friend and ally of Rome. The outcome, of course,
was interpreted differently by each party, as suited respective tastes.
Maroboduus represented the agreement as putting him on equal terms
with his opponents.'93 From the Roman vantage-point, however, the
Marcomannic prince had been obliged to keep the peace.!™% That version
appropriately accommodated public opinion.

The great rebellion in Pannonia pinned down the bulk of Rome’s
forces for more than three years from a.p. 6 to 9. Germany was
surprisingly quiet during those years. Maroboduus held to his treaty,
and the rest of the land seemed untroubled. Five legions remained in the
Rhine command, but the hand of Rome, it appears, was felt only lightly
in Germany. Roman authority extended to parts of the nation, but by no
means to all. The process of urbanization, establishment of markets, and
encouragement of peaceful assemblies that came with Roman presence
advanced without apparent resistance.! The new legate P. Quinctilius
Varus, related by marriage to the houses of Augustus and Agrippa, was a
man more accustomed to peace than to war, more comfortable with
administration than with fighting.’ Varus’ activities, therefore, con-
centrated on the imposition of rules, the exercise of judicial powers, and
the collection of revenues — a practice not hitherto implemented in
Germany. Cassius Dio appropriately notes that Varus acted as if the
Germans were subject peoples. Other sources, eager to blame the legate
for future calamity, stress his combination of greed and ineptitude.!%”
The actions provoked a subversive movement among the Germans,
nourished perhaps as much by scorn as by resentment. Their leaders

199 Vell. Pat. 11.108.2~109.4; Strab. vir.1.3 (290C).

191 Vell. Pat. 11.109.5; cf. Tac. Ana. 11.46. 192 Vell. Pat. 11.110.1-3; Dio Lv.28.7.

193 Tac. Ann. 11.46, 11.63. 14 Tac. Ann. 11.26; cf. 11.45.

15 Dio .v1.18.1-2. On this passage, see the astute remarks of Christ 1977 (c 260) 194-8, as against
Timpe 1967 (c 317) 288-90; 1970 (Cc 319) 81-go.

19 Vell. Pat. 11.117.2. For his relationship to the imperial family, PKé/n 1.10, AE 1966, 425.

197 Dio tv1.18.3; Vell. Pat. 1.117.2—-118.1; Flor. 11.30.31.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GERMANY 185

despised the symbols of Roman authority, the rods, axes and togas — and
the emptiness that they masked.!%8

Details of the insurrection can here be omitted. A young warrior from
the ruling house of the Cherusci, Arminius, inspired and headed the
rebels. They lulled Varus into complacency, then lured him into an
ambush. In the vicinity of the Teutoburg Forest in September, A.D. 9
Varus lost his life and Rome lost three legions, a disaster unparalleled in
the Augustan years.!99

The news shocked and dispirited the princeps. Augustus reportedly let
his hair and beard grow for months as a sign of mourning, and more than
once broke into the celebrated lament ‘Varus, give me back my
legions!’200 Those histrionics buttress the common view that Varus’
defeat marked the major turning point in Augustus’ German policy: the
plan to pacify all of Germany to the Elbe was given up and the empire’s
borders were withdrawn to the Rhine. It might be more revealing,
however, to point to the continuities than to stress the caesura. Augustus
made no public move to surrender Germany. Quite the contrary. The
princeps forthwith dispatched Tiberius, fresh from his victory in the
Pannonian War, to resume command of forces on the Rhine. Indeed
those troops were soon built up with reinforcements from elsewhere to
reach a total of eight legions, a far larger army than had been gathered in
that region before. Augustus would not give even a suggestion of
retreat. Tiberius reconfirmed allegiance in Gaul, distributed armies and
fortified garrisons.%2 The veteran commander knew better than to
venture much beyond the Rhine in a.p. 10 and 11. He restricted himself
to cautious raids and demonstrations. But the demonstrations them-
selves were important. In the presentation of Velleius Paterculus, they
were vigorous offensive manoeuvres and aggressive warfare — and that is
doubtless the impression that Augustus wished to deliver.203 Evidence
fails on the years A.D. 12 and 13, but Roman troops clearly did not huddle
behind a Rhine frontier. Forces remained in or were sent to the land of
the Chauci.2 And Augustus appointed young Germanicus, who had
served with Tiberius on the Rhine in a.p. 11, to supreme command in the
region in A.D. 13. This was no mere holding action. Germanicus would
lead vigorous offensive campaigns into the interior of Germany. Tacitus
pinpointed the motive with accuracy: war on the Germans derived less

1% Tac. Aan. 1.59.

199 Vell. Pat. 11.118.2-119.5; Dio Lv1.18.4-22.2; Tac. Aan. 1.57-61; Suet. Aug. 23; Tib. 17. The
account of Florus, 11.30.32—8, is unreliable. On the site of the battle, see Koestermann 1957 (c 282)
441-3. On Arminius, see Timpe 1970 (C 319) 11-49; Dyson 1971 (a 25) 253~8. Tacitus’ description
of Arminius as /iberator Germaniae (Ann. 11.88) does not imply that Rome had previously annexed the
land as a province. 200 Suet. Aug. 23.2; Oros. vi.21.27. 9! Cf. Flor. 11.30.39.

202 Vell. Pat. 11.120.1; Dio tvt.23.2-4. The eight Rhine legions are listed in Tac. Aan. 1.37.

23 Vell. Pat. 11.120.1-2, 1.121.1; LV1.24.6, LVI.25.2—3; Suet. Tid. 18. ™ Tac, Ann. 1.38.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

186 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

from desire to extend the empire or to achieve tangible gain than to wipe
out the disgrace of Varus’ defeat.205 The princeps would not allow that
calamity to stain Rome’s reputation.

The campaigns of Germanicus after the death of Augustus belong toa
later discussion. Suffice it here to point out that those campaigns in A.D.
15 and 16 follow a long familiar pattern rather than mark a conspicuous
break with the past. They exemplify once again the repeated discrepancy
between achievement and advertisement. Germanicus engaged naval
and land forces, brought armies across the Weser, claimed major
victories — and accomplished very little.2% Despite, or rather in conse-
quence of, that fact, he enjoyed lavish honours. Germanicus celebrated a
handsome triumph and his legates received ornamenta triumphalia. The
triumph specified as defeated tribes the Cherusci, Chatti, Angrivarii, and
all other peoples dwelling west of the Elbe — assertions that went well
beyond tangible reality.207 When Tiberius recalled Germanicus in a.p.
16, the young general expressed disappointment, and claims were made
that another season’s campaigning would have brought the war to an
end.208 Whatever the plausibility of those claims, they were bound to be
made ~ nor did Tiberius dispute them. Rome halted offensive operations
across the Rhine. But she also let it be known that she could have
subjugated Germany in a year, had she wishéd.?0

Definition of a general Augustan ‘policy’ on Germany would be
difficult to formulate and probably pointless to attempt. To designate it
either as ‘defensive’ or as ‘imperialistic’ risks oversimplification.2!° And
it would be erroneous to consider Roman actions in Germany as
following a static plan.

Initial thrusts across the Rhine in the early Augustan years stemmed
from the need to police and pacify Gaul. Rome experimented with both
diplomacy and warfare, intimidating hostile tribes or winning the
allegiance of some to neutralize others. A shocking defeat suffered by
Lollius provoked sterner measures, not to satisfy imperialist urgings but
to restore imperial prestige. Legions were brought up to the Rhine and
forts installed at key sites along the river. Augustus himself returned to
Gaul to implement administrative changes and dramatize the import-

205 Tac. Aan. 1.3.6; cf. Vell. Pat. u.123.1. The motive is confirmed by Strab. vit.1.4 (z91—2C).

206 On Germanicus’ campaigns, see Koestermann 19$7 (C 282); cf. the analysis by Telschow 1975
(C 315) 148-82.

207 Tac. Ann. 1.55.1, 1.72.1, 1.41.2-4; Strab. vit.1.4 (291C); Timpe 1968 (c 318) 41-77.

208 Tac. Aan. 11.26.

209 Strab. vir.1.4 (z91C), written after Augustus’ death, implies that the princeps never relin-
quished claims on Germany west of the Elbe.

210 For an extensive rehearsal of opinions through the early twentieth century, see Oldfather and
Canter 1915 (C 294) 9-20, 35-81. A more recent survey by Christ 1977 (Cc 260) 151-67. Add also
Welwei 1986 (c 323) 118-37.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GERMANY 187

ance he attached to the area. Defence of the Gallic provinces and
expansion into Germany were complementary rather than contrasting
policies. The princeps’ stepsons, first Drusus, then Tiberius, carried
Roman standards into the lands of the barbarian over the next several
years, in campaigns that included impressive victories, advance to the
Elbe, deportations of peoples, and the planting of garrisons at selected
locations. No obvious ultimate goal had been announced or probably
formulated. The successes represented more than a display of might, but
rather less than the organization of a province. Altars at Cologne and on
the Elbe signified German loyalty to the princeps, and Domitius’ crossing
of the Elbe to enlist new peoples in Roman amicitia put on show Rome’s
ability to influence events wherever she wished in that vast land. The
garrisons in the interior implied that Roman presence would be neither
brief nor superficial. But generals continued to withdraw the main body
of their forces to the Rhine after almost every campaigning season.
Augustus preferred to exhibit power than to put it to risk.

Tiberius’ appointment to Germany in A.D. 4 signalled the restored
confidence of the princeps in his newly adopted son and gave him the
opportunity to add further laurels to his reputation. The campaigns were
more notable for enhancement of prestige than for solid accomplish-
ment. Conquest of the Marcomanni would have provided something
solid but had to be abandoned for pressing needs elsewhere. As
substitute came a movement toward more systematic application of
judicial and financial authority by the new legate Varus. But the changes
engendered reaction and calamity. Augustus had to adjust accordingly.
If he could not replace Varus’ three legions, he could shift forces from
elsewhere in the empire to the Rhine. His appointment of Tiberius and
Germanicus in the years that followed the Varian disaster served to
controvert any suggestion of Roman weakness. And their campaigns
proposed to show that Rome could resurrect her influence in Germany
whenever circumstances required it.

Despite shifts in behaviour and action, continuities prevailed: the
emphasis on Rome’s international authority and her ascendancy over all
rivals. That emphasis emerges in the swift retaliation after each chal-
lenge, the timely appearance of the princeps and his stepsons, the
establishment of garrisons, the promotion of the imperial cult, the
expeditions (however brief and temporary) to the Elbe, triumphal
honours and imperial salutations repeatedly awarded, the display of
Roman magisterial symbols, the introduction of administrative regula-
tions, and the drive to compensate publicly for every setback. Reference
to Germany in the Res Gestae suitably completes the picture. Augustus
ignores precision for propaganda: he includes Germany with Gaul and

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

188 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

Spain as evidence for his pacification of Europe from Gades to the
Elbe.2"!

X. IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY

Assessment of Augustus’ imperial policy has long divided scholars. Was
he a relentless expansionist or a prudent leader who set bounds to the
empire? Did he conduct aggressive imperialism or a defensive policy?
Was he military conqueror or bringer of peace?

Pax Augusta has become the conventional characterization of the new
order introduced by the princeps.2!2 Repetition by moderns, however,
obscures the fact that the phrase rarely surfaced in the age of Augustus
himself. It finds voice occasionally in dedications offered by individuals
or officials in Italian or provincial towns.2!3 But it does not represent a
slogan emanating from the government.

Augustus, it is often alleged, placed limits on the extension of territory
and advised that the empire be held within fixed bounds. But evidence
for that conclusion is slim and dubious. Recovery of the standards from
Parthia in 20 B.c. induced the princeps to announce that the realm could
remain at.its present extent — a posture that, at best, was only temporary
and brief.?!* He issued instructions directing generals not to pursue
enemies beyond the Elbe, but that too was a temporary restraint
designed to allow concentration on another conflict, not a delineation of
boundaries.2!5 More significant, or so it would seem, was a document
read to the Senate after Augustus’ death and purporting to contain his
advice that the empire be held within its present frontiers.2!© The
authenticity of that item remains in doubt. Tiberius may have had cause
to seek posthumous Augustan sanction for policies he intended to
promote. And the statement attributed to Augustus by Dio that he had
never added possessions from the barbarian world is preposterous.?!7

The martial accomplishments of Augustus belie any systematic policy
of limits or leanings toward pacifism. The princeps’ appointees penetrated
beyond the First. Cataract in Egypt, extended influence to Ethiopia and
invaded Arabia. He converted Judaea into a province, rattled sabres at
Parthia, and maintained an indirect hegemony in Armenia. Roman
forces subjugated north-west Spain and carried campaigns against tribes
in north Africa. Augustus or his surrogates fought Dalmatians and
Pannonians, mounted a force against the Marcomanni, and laid the

2 Aug. RG 26.2. 212 Cfe.g., Stier 1975 (A 91) 18-42; Fears 1981 (c 267) 884-9.

23 ILS 3787, 3789; IGRR tv 1173; cf. Weinstock 1960 (F 617) 47-50.

214 Dio itv.9.1; cf. Lilt.10.4-5. 215 Strab. vir.1.4 (291C).

216 Tac. Ann. 1.11.4; Dio Lvt.33.5—6.

217 Dio Lvt.33.6. Suetonius’ assertion that Augustus had no ambition for empire or martial glory
(Aug. 21.2) is nonsense. On these matters, see now Ober 1982 (c 293) 306-28.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY 189

groundwork for Roman provinces along the Danube. He routed Alpine
peoples, opened passes in the mountains, reduced Raetia, and occupied
Noricum. Romans crossed the Rhine, established garrisons in Germany,
and dispatched armies to the Elbe. The record of conquest eclipsed that
of all predecessors. The regime thrived on expansionism — or at least the
reputation of expansionism.

Augustus left the impression of aggressiveness even where he had no
intent to undertake aggression. Britain is a prime example. On three
occasions, so Cassius Dio reports, the princeps let it be known that he was
on the point of mounting an expedition against that remote island: in 34,
27 and 26 8B.c. Each time other pressing needs conveniently intervened to
postpone the venture: a rising in Dalmatia, unsettled conditions in Gaul,
and the Cantabrian War respectively.?!8 In the eyes of contemporaries in
the 30s and 20s, the invasion of Britain was a sure thing — as was its
conquest. Repeated allusions in the poems of Virgil, Horace and
Propertius attest to that public perception.2!9 Augustus could later
abandon the idea altogether by producing a plausible justification:
British kings had sent embassies, made offerings on the Capitol, and
formally acknowledged the princeps’ authority. It was as good as a
conquest — and much cheaper.2”° Britain could subsequently be ignored,
a matter of policy, as Augustus explicitly characterized it.22! The earlier
projection of an aggressive pose had equally been a matter of policy.

Reputation held pre-eminent place in the realm of Augustus. The
precedents of the Republic helped shape the ideology of the Principate —
not so much in constitutional matters as in the image of martial success.
Pax rarely made an appearance as symbol of Republican aspirations.
Victoria predominated as a numismatic slogan, triumphs represented the
most coveted prizes, expansion of territory elicited ringing phrases from
orators who trumpeted Roman mastery of the world.?2? That is the
proper context for comprehending the imperial posture of Augustus.?4

Defeat of Antony and Cleopatra placed unprecedented power in the
hands of the victor. He may have sought to bind up the wounds of the
civil war, but he also made certain to commemorate the victory — and to
institutionalize reminders of it. Two new cities rose as memorials to the
achievement, each bearing the imposing designation of Nicopolis, one
on the site of Octavian’s camp at Actium, the other to mark the battle

218 Dio xirx.38.2, LIt.22.§, LIII.25.2.

9 Virg. Esl. 1.67; G. 1.29, 11.25; Hor. Epod. vu.7; Carm. 1.21.13, 1.35.29, 114.34, I1.5.2-4,
1v.14.47; Prop. 11.27.5, 1v.3.7; cf. Momigliano 1930 (c 290) 39-41.

20 Strab. 1v.5.3 (200C). These embassies need to be kept distinct from the arrival of British
refugee princes as suppliants at the court of Augustus; RG 32.1. 221 Tac. Agr. xi.

@ E.g. Cic. Leg. Man. 53; Mur. 22; Off. 1.38, 11.26; Phil. vitt.12. For Victoriaas a symbol, see Fears
1981 (C 268) 773~804. On Republican attitudes toward militarism and conquest, see Harris 1979 (c

273) 10-41; ef. Brunt 1978 (c 257) 162-72; Jal 1982 (c 279) 143-50.
23 On what follows, see the fuller treatment in Gruen 1986 (c 271) 51-72.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

190 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

near Alexandria that completed the conquest. At Epirote Nicopolis the
conqueror sponsored games, enlarged the temple of Apollo, erected a
trophy, and displayed a huge inscription to memorialize the victory.74
And in 29 B.c. Octavian celebrated a triple triumph, a spectacular event
that stretched over three days, to signal his successes in Illyria, Actium
and Alexandria.”5 The monuments and the ceremonies spelled out these
messages clearly: they exalted not pax but the gloria of the conqueror.

Those celebrations set a pattern for the imagery, both written and
visual, that characterized the self-representation of the princeps and his
government. The Res Gestae makes the point without ambiguity.
Augustus reels off his victories abroad and the distinctions which they
earned him at home: ovationes, triumphs, salutations as imperator, the
annexation of Egypt, advance against Ethiopia and Arabia, recovery of
eastern provinces and captured standards, defeat of Pannonians and
Dacians, pacification of the Alps, Gaul, Spain and Germany, and
extension of the Illyrian frontier to the Danube.?26 He summarized the
achievement with a claim that he had pushed the boundaries of every
province as a lesson to peoples who did not acknowledge the imperium of
Rome.”27 The princeps does indeed boast of bringing pax. But it is a pax
achieved by victories. And he declared that the temple of Janus had been
closed three times during his reign — a fact that signalled not permanent
peace but repeated subjugation of enemies and pacification of empire.78
The Res Gestae provides no apologia or justification. Augustus takes for
granted the legitimacy of Roman conquest and expansionism.7° The
preamble of the document itself sums up the contents quite pointedly:
‘The achievements of the divine Augustus whereby he subjected the
world to the power of the Roman people.’

The poets of the era reinforce that impression. It need not be surmised
that they wrote at Augustus’ behest; nor, conversely, that their writings
either provoked the princeps, exceeded his intent, or subtly criticized his
ambitions.230 One can, however, postulate with confidence that ideas
and attitudes repeatedly voiced by the poets evoke the prevailing
atmosphere of public discussion.

24 Epirote Nicopolis: Strab. v11.7.5—6 (324-5C); x.2.2 (450C); Pliny, HN tv.1.5; Paus. x.38.4;
Dio it.1.2-3, Lit.1.q—$; Suet. Aug. 18; the inscription: Oliver 1969 (B 259) 178-82; Carter 1977 (B
216) 227-30; Alexandrian Nicopolis: Strab. xvut.1.10 (795C); Dio L1.18.1; see Hanson 1980 (c 116)
249-54. 25 Suet. Ang. 22; Dio L1.21.5-9.

2 Aug. RG 26.2-5, 27.1, 27.3, 29.1-2, 30.1~2; cf. Nicolet 1988 (A 69) 28-40.

227 Aug. RG 26.1. The passage is interpreted, rather too strictly, by Braunert 1977 (C 255) 207-17,
to imply that Augustus created no new provinces. See Vell. Pat. 1.39.3.

2 Aug. RG 13; cf. Dio Liv.36.z.

29 The only exception is a claim that the Alps were subdued without bringing an unjust war on
any tribe; RG 26.3.

2 For various views, see ¢.g., Meyer 1961 (c 288); Brunt 1963 (Cc 256) 170-6; Seager 1980 (c 309)
103-11; Williams 1990 (c 325) 258-75. Recent bibliographies in Doblhofer 1981 (c 265) 1922-6;
Little 1982 (B 111) 352-70. See esp., Johnson 1973 (B 93) 171-80; Griffin 1984 (Cc 269) 189-218.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY 191

Virgil’s verses supply pertinent illustrations. The Georgics portray the
princeps as heir to Rome’s hardiest warriors of the past: Decius, Camillus,
Scipio and Marius. Actium made him victor in the furthest bounds of the
East; Parthia is reckoned as already defeated and humbled; Octavian
thunders on the banks of the Euphrates, imposing laws upon compliant
peoples.23! The Aeneid forecasts world dominion in the age of Augustus.
Jupiter promises imperial holdings without limits. And the shield of
Aeneas depicts the princeps as sitting in proud splendour while long rows
of conquered peoples from Africa to the Euphrates pass in array before
him.232

Comparable indications recur in the songs of Horace. The poet urges
that Roman arms no longer be trained on fellow-citizens but be directed
against foreign foes. He takes for granted Roman offensive thrusts
against Parthians, Gauls, Scythians, Arabs and Britons. The drive for
expansionism is simply a given. Horace foresees a universal dominance
for his nation.23 Parthia is the principal target: Augustus will avenge
Roman honour, regain the standards lost by other generals, lead
conquered Parthians in triumph, and annex the land to Rome’s
empire. The princeps did indeed obtain the standards in 20 B.c. but
without battle, trophies, or triumphs. Horace, however, presents the
outcome as fulfilment of his own prediction: Parthians are stripped of
their spoils, bend to the dictates of Rome, and venerate Augustus.
Capture of the standards is juxtaposed to the exercise of Roman sway
throughout the world.25 Whatever his personal predilections, Horace
accurately reflects the dominant propaganda of the era.

Reflection can be found also in the lines of Propertius. The convention
of the recusatio conveniently served the purpose. By disclaiming com-
petence to sing of Augustus’ martial feats, Propertius also calls attention
to those feats. The poet alludes to victories abroad, kings led in triumph,
distant lands trembling and obedient to the authority of the princeps.7
Like Horace, Propertius projects campaigns to the extremities of empire
and visualizes a humiliation of Parthia.27 And when the standards were
returned to Rome, Propertius duly represents the result as a Parthian
confession of defeat.238

The cynical Ovid, both playful and serious, describes the heady
excitement in Rome on the eve of young C. Caesar’s departure to the
East in 2 B.c. His Ars Amatoria characterized the intent of the

Bl Virg. G. 1.169—-72, 11. 30-3, IV.5 $9-62.

22 Virg. Aen. 1.278-9, 111.714—-18; cf. 1.286—-go, VI.791-800, ViI.Go1-15.

23 Hor. Epod. vit.3—10; Sat. 11.1.10-15; Carm. 1.12.49-57, 1.29.1-$, 1.3§-29-40, I11.3.45-$8,
111.4.25—-36. 234 Hor. Carm. 1.2.5 1-2, 1.12.5 3-4, 1-29.4-§, 11.9.18-22, 111. 3.43—4, IIL.§.2—-12.

35 Hor. Epist, t.12.27-8, 1.18.56—7, 11.1.256; Carm. 1V.14.41-§2, IV.15.6—8, IV.1§.21-4; Caray.
Saee. 53-6. 236 Prop. 11.1.25—36, 11.10.13—18; cf. Iv.4.11~12.

27 Prop. 11.10.13—14, 11.14.23—4, [L.4.1-9, H1.9.$4, HL. 12.3, 1V.3.7—10, IV.3.35—40, IV. 3.63-9.

28 Prop. Iv.6.79-80.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

192 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

expedition: Augustus to add to his dominions, Parthia to pay the price
for her misdeeds, Crassus’ shades to be avenged. The poet even
envisions the future triumph of Gaius, bringing in its train captive
Asians from exotic parts of the world.239 Gaius, in fact, never returned
from that venture, and no triumph was earned. Ovid therefore recalls the
language of his predecessors: recovery of the standards sufficed to make
the point and Augustus had already coerced the Parthians into humble
compliance.2 The Metamorphoses and the Fasti speak of the subjugation
of barbarian peoples and the deep penetration of Roman power. Jupiter
surveys a world where Roman dominion is universal. The earth lies
under the heel of the conqueror.24! Even in the poems from exile, late in
Augustus’ reign, Ovid’s praise of the princeps places stress upon victory,
the garnering of military laurels, the conquest of Pannonia, Raetia and
Thrace, surrender by Armenia and Parthia, awe-struck Germany, and
imperial holdings now at their greatest reach.242

The public manifestations of the regime tell much the same story.
Coins, inscriptions and monuments converge in transmitting the picture
of Roman might and dominance. Victoria, whether as bust or as figure,
occurs frequently on the coinage, especially with the globe that exempli-
fied world rule. Other martial symbols also prevail: triumphal chariots,
the ornamenta trinmphalia, trophies, a triumphal arch, the temple of Mars
Ultor, victory laurels.243 Annexation, acquisition, or military reprisals
are regularly on display. The numismatic legends trumpet Aegyptus
capta, Armenia capta, Asia recepta and signa recepta2“ The inscribed
trophy that recorded Augustus’ pacification of the Alpine regions listed
the names of nearly fifty tribes that had been subjected to Roman
power.245

The city of Rome exhibited striking monuments that transmitted the
image of conqueror, master and guarantor of security through force. As
early as 29 B.C. Octavian installed a statue of Victory in the Curia Iulia. A
triumphal arch commemorated his successes abroad.2“ Two years later
the Senate appropriately voted Augustus the privilege of placing laurel
trees before his residence and setting an oak crown above them — a
gesture that symbolized his role both as perpetual victor over enemies
and as saviour of citizens.?47

The Forum Augustum gave the most visible and prominent display of
Augustan ideology. The imposing temple of Mars Ultor, vowed by

239 Ov. Ars Am. 1.177-228. 240 Ov. Fast. v.§79-94-

241 Ov. Met. xv.820-31, xV.877; Fast. 1.856, 1.717, 11.684, 1Vv.857-62.

242 Ov, Tr. 11.1.169—78, 225-32, 1.12.45—8.

23 E.g. BMCRE Augustus, nos. 1, 68, 77-8, 101-2, 217-19, 224, ef al.

244 E.g. BMCRE Augustus, nos. 10-19, 40-4, 56-9, 332, 410-23, 647-55, 671-81, 703.
245 Pliny, HN 111.136-7. 2% Dio 11.22.1-2; Zanker 1972 (F 626) 8-12.

247 Dio 1111.16.4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY 193

Augustus after Philippi but not completed until 2 B.c., held conspicuous
place. It would be the locus of assemblage for the Senate for all
declarations of war or award of triumphs, and the symbolic starting-
point for every general to lead his troops abroad. The Forum Augustum
served as repository for weapons of all sorts and for arms seized as booty
from the defeated foes of Rome.?48 The statue of the princeps himself
stood in the centre of the Forum, set in a triumphal chariot which
contained record of his conquests.2*9 The flanks of the Forum held two
rows of statues. In the niches of one side Augustus installed representa-
tives of the great men of Rome’s past, with inscribed e/ogia attesting,
among other things, to military achievements and triumphal honours.
Opposite that array of heroes stood the figures of Aeneas and all the
representatives of the Julian line.25° The princeps thus linked himself and
his family to a gallery of republican duces, triumphatores and summi viri, as
heir to the grandest martial traditions of the state.

Other items add to the impression. Among them the commanding
statue of Augustus at Prima Porta takes pride of place. An elaborately
engraved cuirass calls forth the martial image. The centrepiece of the
breastplate displays the transfer of captured standards by the Parthians to
Rome, emblematic of Roman supremacy in the East. And the figures of
female barbarians in the middle zone of the cuirass, dejected and
submissive, represent Roman humbling of the Celtic peoples of the
West. Triumphal symbolism predominates. The mother earth figure,
reclining at the bottom with cornucopiae and babies, projects prosperity
and the bountifulness of the land. As is clear, the new and prosperous age
depends upon armed force and constitutes the fruits of victory.25! The
Prima Porta figure signifies conquest of the empire and world-wide rule
assured by the continual vigilance of the princeps.

The celebrated Ara Pacis, it might be thought, forms a counterpoint
to this presentation. Not necessarily so. The altar, in fact, strikes a
balance that parallels other verbal and visual productions of the
Augustan era: a juxtaposition of the rewards of peace with the military
success that made them possible. The Senate voted to consecrate the Ara
Pacis in 13 B.C. as memorial to Augustus’ return in that year from the
subjugation of Spain and the pacification of Gaul.?5? The panel of Aeneas
on the west side of the altar has him offering sacrifice to the Di Penates, a
scene that evidently celebrates his homecoming, just as the monument
itself celebrated Augustus’ homecoming. But that panel is balanced by

48 Ov. Fast. v.550-G2; Suet. Aug. 29.2; Dio Lv.10.2-3.

“9 Aug. RG 35.1; Vell. Pat. 1.39.2.

280 Ov. Fast. v.563-6; Suet. Aug. 31.5; Dio Lv.10.3; SHA. Alex. Sev. 28.6; Zanker 1968 (PF 625);
Frisch 1980 (B 231) 91-8; Zanker 1988 (F 633) 210-14; Luce 1990 (c 284) 123-38.

251 On the Prima Porta statue, see esp. Kahler 1959 (F 441); Zinserling 1967 (F 636) 327-39;
Pollini 1978 (PF 531) 8-74; Zanker 1988 (F 633) 183-92. 232 Aug. RG 12.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

194 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

another, featuring the partially preserved Mars, father of the twins
Romulus and Remus, and pre-eminent god of war. A similar balance
occurs on the eastern panels of the Ara Pacis. One depicts a female deity
with the attributes of fertility and bountifulness, calling attention to the
blessings of a tranquil time. But its corresponding panel contains the
goddess Roma resting, as often, on a pile of arms. The imagery takes on
meaning in combination. The accomplishment of peace is inseparable
from success in war.253

That association is reinforced by a recent discovery. Close connexion
held between the Ara Pacis and the Egyptian obelisk that stood as the
gnomon of the colossal sundial, the Solarium Augusti. The shadow of the
obelisk pointed squarely at the centre of the Ara Pacis on 23 September,
the birthday of Augustus himself.254 The obelisk itself was set up to
memorialize Augustus’ subordination of Egypt to the control of the
Roman empire. The collective message dramatically linked peace with
military authority and imperial expansion.

XI. CONCLUSION

A survey of territorial expansion under Augustus tempts conclusions
about strategic designs, empire-wide policy, and imperialist intent. It has
been claimed, for example, that Augustus adopted and refined a military
system of hegemonic rule, resting on a combination of client states and
an efficiently deployed armed force stationed in frontier sectors but
mobile enough for transfer wherever needed.255 Many reckon the push
to the north as a carefully conceived and sweeping plan that linked the
Alpine, Balkan and German campaigns, and aimed to establish a secure
boundary of the empire that ran along the line of the Danube and the
Elbe.256 Others, however, consider Augustus a determined imperialist,
bent on expansion everywhere and motivated by dreams of world
conquest. Only the Pannonian revolt and the defeat of Varus obliged
him to check his ambition and bequeath a defence policy to his
successor.?257

Yet the very idea of an all-encompassing scheme, whatever its form,

253 Bibliography on the Ara Pacis is immense. Among the more important publications, see
Moretti 1948 (F 505); Toynbee 1953 (F $97) 67-95; Kahler 1954 (F 439) 67-100; Hanell 1960 (F 405)
31-123; Simon 1967 (F 576); Borbein 1975 (F 294) 242-66; Pollini 1978 (F 531) 75-172; Torelli 1982
(P $96) 27-61; Zanker 1988 (F 633) 172-83, 203-6. de Grummond 1990 (c 272) 663-77,
unconvincingly identifies the female deity with Pax.

254 See the meticulous calculations of Buchner 1976 (F 304) 319-65; 1983 (F 307) 494-508.

255 Luttwak 1976 (A $7) 13-50, 192.

256 See the list of scholars in Oldfather and Canter 1915 (c 294) 9~10, and note, esp., Syme 1934 (c
312) 351-4; Kraft 1973 (A 53) 181-208.

257 Brunt 1963 (c 256) 170-6; Wells 1972 (E 601) 1-13; Moynihan 1986 (c 291) 149-62; Nicolet
1988 (A 69) 41-8.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONCLUSION 195

misconceives the diversity and flexibility of Augustus’ foreign ventures.
No uniform plan or articulated goal guided his acts. Location, circum-
stances and contingencies determined decisions.

The eastern realms provoked varied responses. In Asia Minor and
Judaea Augustus cultivated client princes, generally keeping in place
those already established, regardless of prior allegiances. But he was not
averse to deposing dynasts (e.g. in Commagene), intervening in royal
dispensations (as with Herod), or even converting principalities into
provinces (Galatia and Judaea) when unexpected developments called
for it. Principal garrisons of Roman power in the East stood in Egypt
and Syria — but for very different purposes. Egypt held a special place for
Augustus, its economic resources a mainstay of empire and its territory a
staging-ground for military adventures in Ethiopia and Arabia. Troops
in Syria, by contrast, served to signal stability rather than advance, a
means of showing the flag and discouraging Parthian ambitions. The
princeps kept a hand in the dynastic affairs of Armenia and a careful watch
on vicissitudes in the royal house of Parthia. Recovery of the standards
took priority in policy and propaganda. But dealings with Parthia relied
on diplomacy — alternate displays of resolve and negotiated settlements —
rather than force. The kingdom supplied occasions for posturing, not a
menace against which to devise a strategy.

Different motives and different actions prevailed in the West. The
princeps or his generals conducted vigorous campaigns in Illyria and
Spain in the 30s and 20s B.c. Strategic purposes, however, played at best
a secondary role. Octavian used the Illyrian adventure to shore up his
reputation vis-a-vis Antony, and brought north-west Spain under subjec-
tion to demonstrate Roman might throughout the Iberian peninsula.
Roman involvement in north Africa had still a different character (or
characters): the princeps experimented with client kings, warfare and
colonial foundations at various times and places in that area — with no
consistent results.

The great northern campaigns may assume coherent shape in retros-
pect — but hardly at the time. Divergent aims dictated action, Roman
response occurred as often as Roman initiative, political and ideological
purposes frequently took precedence over strategic goals. Control of the
Alpine regions facilitated communications between the Rhine forces and
the troops in Illyricum. The push to the Danube held out many
advantages: the disciplining of recalcitrant tribes which had damaged
Rome’s repute, military laurels for members of Augustus’ family, and
opening of a land route from northern Italy to the eastern dependencies.
The heaviest fighting, however, came in reaction to rebellion rather than
as part of an imperial scheme. Advancement against Germans derived
from security and administrative needs in Gaul. Strikes across the Rhine

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

196 4. EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE

advertised Roman might and authority without establishing a perma-
nent presence. Prestige may have counted for more than strategy.
Exhibitions of force occurred after the Varian disaster as before.
Diversity stands out far more boldly than uniformity. There was
uniformity, however, in one key respect. The princeps need not have felt
commitment to relentless conquest and indefinite extension of territory
and power. But he did feel commitment so to represent his aspirations.
Representation and reality often diverged. Augustus made certain to
maintain consistency in the former. Pragmatic considerations might on
occasion dictate restraint or withdrawal. And defeat could sometimes
mar the achievement. But the public posture remained uniform: a
posture of dynamism, success and control. Aelius Gallus’ calamitous
campaigns in Arabia were covered over in the Res Gestae which reports
only Roman advance in the area; and aggressive thrusts served to
compensate for the setbacks. Bloodless negotiations allowed Augustus
to recover the standards from Parthia and diplomacy provided an
acceptable settlement in Armenia; but the regime made menacing
gestures, and the propaganda proclaimed defeat for Parthia and subjec-
tion for Armenia. The closing of Janus’ doors and triumphal. honours
awarded after a campaign in north-west Spain belied the superficiality of
that achievement — to be followed by another decade of brutal fighting in
the region and some heavy losses for Rome. Modest successes in Illyria
during the triumviral period became exaggerated in report and announ-
cement so as to elevate Octavian’s reputation at the expense of his rival.
Victories and the honours of victory marked advance to the Danube and
even encouraged the mounting of a campaign against the Marcomanni;
the Pannonian revolt, however, shattered the illusion of Roman mastery
and required an enormous commitment of resources to restore control.
Conquest of the Alps may have had strategic ends, but it also served to
advertise the prowess of Augustus’ stepsons and to summon public
acclaim for the imperial house. Similarly, Drusus’ thrusts across the
Rhine called forth magnificent honours, out of proportion to solid
accomplishments, and the termination of his advance at the Elbe was
explained away as the consequence of divine intervention. In compar-
able fashion Tiberius obtained high honours for victories in Germany,
and his panegyrist Velleius rhapsodized about his successes, though little
of substance was accomplished. And when disaster did strike, in the
form of Varus’ crushing defeat, the princeps strove to stress continuity,
appointing Tiberius and then Germanicus to resume aggressive
campaigns across the Rhine, as if to deny any setback or interruption.
The imperial policy of Augustus varied from region to region,
adjusted for circumstances and contingencies. Aggression alternated
with restraint, conquest with diplomacy, advance with retreat. Acqui-

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONCLUSION 197

sitions and annexations occurred in some areas, consolidation and
negotiation in others. The insistence upon reputation, however, was
undeviating. The regime persistently projected the impression of
vigour, expansionism, triumph and dominance. Augustus reiterated the
aspirations and professed to eclipse the accomplishments of republican
heroes. The policy may have been flexible, but the image was consistent.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTERS

TIBERIUS TO NERO

T. E. J. WIEDEMANN

I. THE ACCESSION OF TIBERIUS AND THE NATURE
OF POLITICS UNDER THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS

Political history explores the ways in which the men (and very occasion-
ally women) who wielded power over others chose to exercise that
power. In every system of government there are dozens, if not hundreds,
of individuals who have to use their initiative about the exercise of
power in particular circumstances, or about the best way to implement
decisions taken by their superiors. But Rome under Augustus and his
successors was a monarchy: every exercise of political power had
ultimately to be answered for to the emperor. The emperor’s authority
could not publicly be challenged (anyone who successfully did so would
become the new emperor). The political history of the Principate is
therefore primarily an account of the relationship between the reigning
emperor and the other individuals and groups who played a role in
public life. Although some of the political figures of the Julio-Claudian
period were descended from families that had been powerful under the
Republic, it does not follow that the ‘republican’ aristocracy still wielded
independent power. Such men — like the ‘new men’ who were prepared
to put their military or rhetorical skills at the service of the Caesars — had
only as much power as the emperor allowed them, and only for as long as
the emperor needed to make use of them. They had a place in public life
only because, and insofar as, they had the princeps’ favour; they were
what in Latin would be called his amici, friends. He who lost the
emperor’s friendship lost the basis for his public existence ~ and the
effect of that was that his public life (and sometimes his personal
existence) came to an end, whether he was a patrician or a novus homo ora
freedman or even a close relative of the emperor himself.!

From Augustus on, as Cassius Dio noted, politics had ceased to be
‘public’. Important political choices no longer needed to be debated, or
voted on, in public, but only in the private consilium of the emperor and

! For the nature of politics under the Principate, see chs. 2 and 3 above; Wickert 1974 (a 102)
(with bibliography, pp. 5-8); Millar 1977 (A 59); Levick 1985 (c 371). Standard narrative histories of
this period: H.H. Scullard, From the Gracchi to Nero (London, rst edn. 1959); Garzetti 1974 (A 35).

198

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACCESSION OF TIBERIUS 199

his amzici. Consequently historians, ancient as well as modern, lack public
records of how decisions came to be taken by the emperor, or of the
different views held by his amici. As in modern dictatorships, the absence
of reliable information meant that the decision-making process was
portrayed through rumours, jokes, anecdotes, and the hostile reminis-
cence of bitter and disillusioned men (and women) who hated the
establishment largely because they felt it had not given them the rewards
they deserved. The actions of emperors often baffled contemporaries;
and what is baffling is liable to be dismissed as lunatic, or condemned as
monstrous. Hence, as the poet Claudian was to write later,

The annals speak of the crimes committed by the men of old,
And the stains will remain for ever. Who will not for all eternity
Condemn the monstrous actions of the House of Caesar,

Nero’s dreadful murders, the disgusting cliffs of Capri,
Inhabited by an aged pervert??

The most fascinating source of such information about the Julio-
Claudians is to be found in the surviving portions of Tacitus’ Annals.
They cover the periods A.p.14-29, 31-37 and 47-66. Archaeology and
epigraphy may provide additional evidence to supplement the disap-
pointingly meagre accounts of life outside the metropolis in the ancient
literary sources; but the Avnals are the point of departure for political
history. There are other accounts by ancient writers; although often
based on the same sources, they are sometimes not so reliable because of
their particular literary format, but we can use them to modify the more
obviously tendentious interpretations in Tacitus. Tacitus was writing a
century after the death of Augustus, and many of his preoccupations
were as much with the actions and attitudes (especially towards the
Senate) of Trajan and Hadrian, under whom he lived, as with those of the
Julio-Claudians.3

The relationship between emperor and Senate is a major concern of
other senatorial writers beside Tacitus. The language in which they tend
to express that concern is that of a contrast between ‘tyranny’ and
‘freedom’ (/ibertas), concepts inherited from the late Republic. But this
republican vocabulary should not mislead us into treating the history of
the Julio-Claudian period as similar to that of the Republic — as a
chronicle of the magistracies and honours achieved by politicians as the
result of competition with one another. There was competition, but it
was for the emperor’s favour. It was the emperor who took the
decisions. .

2 Cassius Dio on secret politics: Limt.19. The consilium: ch. 7 below. Claudian, IV Cons. Hon.,
8.311-15.

5 Furnesix’s edition of Tacitus’ Aznals remains the most accessible; for commentaries, see

Koestermann 1963-8 (B 98); Goodyear 1972 and 1981 (B62). On Tacitus, Syme 1958 (B 176) remains
basic; among others, see Christ 1978 (B 28).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

200 5- TIBERIUS TO NERO

In recent years historians have stressed that imperial ‘policy’ was often
purely passive, that the decisions taken by emperors were often made in
response to the actions of others. The emperor’s most important activity
was the exercise of gratia, as the most powerful of patrons, he was
expected to distribute favours to senators and the plebs, to Romans and
provincials who came and asked for them. The story of how imperial
responses to such initiatives changed the nature of Mediterranean
culture and society is traced in other chapters of this volume. We should
be sceptical about earlier views of the emperors as great visionaries who
sought to impose upon their officials policies of administrative central-
ization, the systematic spreading of Roman culture, the systematization
of Roman law, justice for provincials (let alone slaves), and even, as was
once believed, a positive attitude towards agriculture, trade and indus-
try. Nor should we put too much emphasis on the emperor’s need to be a
successful showman, like the leader of a modern mass democracy; an
emperor certainly had to advertise his popularity, but that popularity
itself was based on the care he took for his people as patron of rich and
poor alike, pater patriae. But not all imperial policies were passive
responses to the demands of others. Every emperor needed to have a
minimal policy — to stay in command of the political process; to
maximize his own prestige; and to maintain in his own hands the choice
of whom to hand his power on to after his death. These aims had applied
to Augustus as much as they applied to his Julio-Claudian successors.4

The events which followed the death of Augustus at Nola in
Campania on 19 August A.D. 14 became a paradigm for the smooth
transfer of power from an emperor to his successor; few future emperors
found themselves in total control with as little difficulty as Tiberius did.
Nevertheless the moment at which monarchical power is transferred
from one man to his successor is a critical point at which the different
elements that constitute a political system can be seen most clearly.
Although Tacitus’ record of these events at the opening of the Annals
betrays his concern about the accessions of much later emperors (Trajan
in 97 and Hadrian in 117), it reveals the control that a new emperor had
to exercise over, first and foremost, the imperial household, the domus
Caesaris, and then over the soldiers of the praetorian guard, magistrates,
the Senate and people of Rome, and the Roman armies in the provinces.

Although the domus Caesaris was in law just another Roman house-
hold, it gave its head (Lat. paterfamilias) access to material resources,

« For imperial ‘policy’ as a response to initiatives from others, esp. Millar 1977 (a 59). Patronage:
Wallace-Hadrill 1989 (F 75), esp. chs. 3 and 6. Showmanship: Cizek 1972 (c 340) (and below, on
Nero). Succession in pre-industrial states: J. Goody (ed.) Succession to High Office, Cambridge, 1966,
p. 113: ‘The Baganda firmly maintain that it is dangerous to publish in advance the choice of a
successor, as he will surely commit murder to hasten his succession.’

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACCESSION OF TIBERIUS 201

services (via procurators managing estates throughout the empire) and
informal social control on a scale with which no other household could
compete. The emperor’s domus contained not just those of his descen-
dants who were under his legal control (én potestate), a definition much
narrower than that of the word ‘family’ in English, but also their chattels
and estates, including slaves (Lat. familia), and dependants: freedmen,
provincial magnates (including ‘client kings’), and also those Roman
amici who regarded themselves as owing their personal or political lives
to the present Caesar or his predecessors. In this sense, every ex-
magistrate had to consider that he had a personal duty to ensure the well-
being of the current head of the imperial household.

Tiberius was Augustus’ stepson; notwithstanding his marriage to
Augustus’ daughter lulia, it was not his birthright to succeed Augustus
as ‘Caesar’. But in a.p. 4 he had been formally adopted by Augustus as his
son. The grant of tribunicia potestas awarded then and renewed in A.D. 13
together with a grant of imperium maius meant that there was no doubt as
to who would rule Rome after Augustus. Some of the men who might
have been Tiberius’ rivals had been disgraced along with Iulia in 2 B.c.;
others were sent into exile in connexion with the fall of her daughter,
Iulia the Younger, in a.p. 8. At the moment of Augustus’ death, Tiberius
was the only man who could seriously be considered as his political
successor.> But there was someone else with a legitimate claim to a share
in Augustus’ personal estate: his grandson Agrippa Postumus, whom
Augustus had adopted at the same time as Tiberius. Although Roman
law gave a paterfamilias wide rights to dispose of his property as he
pleased, it was customary for sons (together with the widow and
daughters who were still in potestate) to inherit equal portions of the
estate. Anyone who wished to disinherit a son had to do so explicitly in
his will; even if he had been explicitly disinherited, a son could still
appeal against the will as ‘undutiful’ (querella inofficiosi testamenti).
Although Postumus had been sent into exile by his adoptive father, there
is no clear evidence that he had been disinherited: in terms of Roman
private law, he had the same claim to be ‘Caesar’ as Tiberius. However
weak his political influence, the existence of Agrippa Postumus as an
exile on the island of Planasia threatened the smooth transfer of power; it
gave Tiberius’ opponents the option of making use of him.

This made it imperative for Tiberius as heir to step into the persona of
Augustus immediately that he died. He had to be on the spot to be
recognized as the new paterfamilias, but Augustus’ final illness came
suddenly. Earlier in the year, the seventy-six-year-old emperor had still

5 Tiberius has attracted numerous biographers, among them Seager 1972 (C 392); Levick 1976 (c
366). Cf. Pippidi 1965 (c 385); Rogers 1943 (c 388); Syme 1974 (c 398). On the events of 2 B.c. and
A.D. 8, Meise 1969 (c 375), chs. 2 and 3; Syme 1974 (C 229).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

202 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

been in good health; on 11 May, he had completed a census revision,
with Tiberius as his colleague. Early in August Tiberius left Augustus in
Campania to return to the army in Pannonia. He hastened to Nola as
soon as he heard that Augustus was ill, possibly in response to a
summons by the emperor himself. Tacitus reports a rumour that when
Tiberius reached Nola, he found Augustus already dead, and that Livia
kept the truth hidden in order to facilitate the transfer of power to her
son (more suggestive of the role played by Plotina at Hadrian’s accession
in A.D. 117). Tiberius himself claimed that he had spoken to Augustus
before he died.

Tiberius’ first reported action after Augustus’ death was to write to all
the Roman armies (not just his own in Pannonia). He did not style
himself Augustus, since that was a title that had been bestowed by the
Roman Senate, and he had no right yet to use it. But there was no need to
wait for the Senate to confirm the manifest fact that following Augustus’
death, Tiberius had become the new head of the imperial household. The
next thing that happened was that Agrippa Postumus was put to death.
Augustus had suggested that Postumus’ rowdy character made him
entirely unsuitable for public responsibility. But Tacitus reports
rumours, presumably put about by those who did not wish to see
Tiberius succeed, that the emperor had visited his exiled grandson at
Planasia in the year before his death, and planned to reinstate him. Later,
one of his freedmen pretended to be the dead Postumus, suggesting that
there were those who might be expected to back his claims against
Tiberius. He had to be killed. The fact that Postumus’ name was not
mentioned at all in Augustus’ will suggests that the execution had been
arranged by Augustus before his death, to facilitate Tiberius’ accession;
it might have been ordered by Livia, purporting to act for Augustus, for
the same reason (or out of ‘stepmotherly spite’, as Tacitus would have it);
or by Tiberius himself. It was probably carried out by one of Augustus’
advisers, Gaius Sallustius Crispus (a grand-nephew of the historian), as
soon as he heard of the emperor’s death. When Tiberius heard of the
execution, he denied responsibility and said that the action would have
to be answered for to the Senate. No further discussion occurred.®

By inheriting the imperial household, the domus Caesaris, Tiberius
controlled greater material resources than were available to any other
Roman, either in a private capacity or as a magistrate. Caesar owned
property throughout the empire; he commanded procurators in every
province to look after his interests (even when they conflicted with those
of the governor, whether pro-magistrate or legate), and consequently
was served by a more effective network for gathering information than

6 On the accession, Timpe 1962 (c 403). Tiberius writes to armies: Dio Lvii.z.1. Postumus:
Jameson 1975 (c 126). The ‘false Postumus’: Tac. Aan. 11.39.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACCESSION OF TIBERIUS 203

was available to anyone else, including the magistrates at Rome. He also
inherited the loyalty and gratitude which every Roman in public life
owed to his predecessor in return for the patronage which Augustus had
bestowed (and which Tiberius ensured would not be forgotten: see the
Res Gestae Divi Augusti). That this made Tiberius the undisputed ruler of
Rome from the moment of Augustus’ death was beyond question. That
fact was symbolically recognized by the oath to protect him and the rest
of the domus whose paterfamilias he had now become, taken as soon as
they heard the news by the consuls, and the prefects of the praetorian
guard and of the corn supply, and then administered to the Senate, the
equestrian ordo and the Roman people. Similar oaths were subsequently
sworn by communities elsewhere in the empire; a copy of an oath to
Tiberius and his whole household taken by the cities of Cyprus survives.
This oath illustrates the dependence of groups as well as individual
magistrates on the head of the imperial family as the source of patronage,
honour and decision-making. But — unlike the sacramentum, the military
oath taken by a soldier to the emperor as his commander-in-chief — its
force was private and personal, not public or constitutional. An
emperor’s power and influence as Caesar may be distinguished from the
public powers conferred upon him by the Senate and people, the organs
who alone had the right to grant him émperium, the power to command.
Later imperial candidates realized that the moment they controlled the
imperial household, the award of public titles and offices by Senate and
people would be a formality; in a.p.14, in the absence of any historical
precedent, the distinction was very clear, and Tiberius took pains to act
with complete constitutional propriety. He could not take public
acquiescence in his accession for granted. Velleius Paterculus refers to
fears of disorder, confirmed by the posting of large numbers of troops at
Augustus’ funeral.’

Tiberius accompanied Augustus’ body on its ceremonial return to
Rome, just as twenty-two years before he had accompanied the body of
his brother Drusus on its long journey back from northern Germany.
The ceremonial procession, and the funeral itself, were to set precedents
for the treatment of other members of the imperial family after their
deaths. The public funeral was decreed at a meeting of the Senate early in
September, convoked by Tiberius in virtue of his tribunicia potestas rather
than his imperium. This does not mean that Tiberius thought that the
imperium maius he had been granted in the previous year did not suffice to
make him a legitimate emperor; but it does suggest that there was
uncertainty about whether Augustus’ responsibility (referred to in
Tacitus as his cura or munera) for governing the empire had lapsed at his

7 EP 1os=AN $551. Cf. Price 1984 (F 199) (and ch. 16 below). Fears for stability: Vell. Pat.

11.124.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

204 5- TIBERIUS TO NERO

death. Augustus’ will was read to the Senate. It confirmed Tiberius as
principal heir; he was awarded two thirds of Augustus’ property, and the
remaining third went to Livia. Historians have made much of the
opening words of the will, stating that Augustus wanted Tiberius to be
his heir because ‘a cruel fate’ had taken away his own (adopted) sons (and
natural grandsons) Gaius and Lucius. This was not a calculated or even
unintended insult to Tiberius, suggesting that he was only a second best
as successor, but an explanation for why Augustus had adopted as his
son and instituted as his heir someone from outside the Julian family.
These words can only have been intended to strengthen further the
legitimacy of Tiberius’ position as head of the domus Caesaris — particu-
larly since no mention was made of Agrippa Postumus.

On 17 September, after the funeral, there was a second meeting of the
Senate, at which it was reported that Augustus’ spirit had been seen
tising to heaven in the form of an eagle while the body was being
cremated. If the Senate chose to believe this testimony, it would be
powerful evidence in favour of the proposition that Augustus had now
joined the Olympians; the Senate chose to believe, and accepted the
consequence, that a cult ought to be formally established by the Roman
state to worship the new god.

Turning next to the matters of this world, the Senate had to give its
opinion on what was to happen to Augustus’ responsibilities now that he
had departed the scene. Tacitus does not explicitly tell us what motion
was debated. It cannot have been to advise the people to grant Tiberius
imperium, since he already had that; nor to define his provincia, since that
had presumably been done when he was given maius imperium to equal
that of Augustus in A.D. 13. Probably the point at issue was whether
Tiberius should be asked to undertake the whole of Augustus’ cara, his
oversight of political (and especially foreign and military) affairs.®
Tiberius pointed out that these responsibilities were vast; he wondered
whether there was any case for sharing them. Tacitus tells us that one of
the senators, Asinius Gallus, was quick to agree with this suggestion.

At this point in his narrative Tacitus reports a story that Augustus had
once suggested that, apart from Tiberius, there were other persons who
were ‘capable of being emperor’, capaces imperii. He names them as M.
Lepidus, Asinius Gallus and L. Arruntius (or alternatively Cn. Piso).
Tacitus does not give us the exact context of this statement; it may have
been invented by an earlier historian. It may be more than a coincidence
that two of those named were the fathers of men who were later
themselves to lay claim tothe Principate. The son of Marcus (rather than
Manius, as printed in most editions of Tacitus since the seventeenth
century) Aemilius Lepidus (cos. a.p. 6) was first trusted, and then

8 Liebeschuetz 1986 (c 163); cf. Tac. Aan. 1.11: ‘partem curarum’.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACCESSION OF TIBERIUS 205

executed, by Caligula; Lucius Arruntius (also cos. A.D. 6) was the son of
one of Octavian’s commanders at Actium, and adopted as his own son
Camillus Scribonianus, who was to rebel against Claudius in 42; and
various Julio-Claudian emperors felt themselves threatened by men
called Piso. Whatever lies behind the anecdote, it raises the question
what the source would be from which an alternative leader might derive
his authority. Tacitus’ account is intended to suggest that at the
beginning of Tiberius’ reign, there still existed political figures whose
power was independent of the backing of the princeps. The fourth man
named was the Asinius Gallus who took up Tiberius’ question as to
whether the cura borne by Augustus ought to be divided. He was the son
of Asinius Pollio, one of the early generals of Octavian during the 4os
and 30s B.c., but by no means a constant and unquestioning supporter.
Virgil had dedicated the Fourth (‘Messianic’) Eclogue to Pollio; and
Gallus is said to have told the literary critic Asconius Pedianus that he
himself was the promised Messiah. According to Tacitus, it was
Augustus’ opinion that Gallus was incapable of exercising imperial
power, but avid for it. Tiberius could not forget that after Augustus had
forced him to divorce Vipsania, a woman he genuinely loved, in favour
of Augustus’ own daughter Iulia (and that was not a happy marriage), it
was Gallus who married Vipsania.?

Gallus had implied that Tiberius could not shoulder Augustus’
responsibilities alone. Tiberius could not conceal his displeasure; Gallus
backtracked by pretending that he had made the point only in order to
prove that imperial power could not in fact be divided. The episode
raises the question of Tiberius’ honesty in claiming that he did not want
the imperial office. Contemporary evidence shows that Tiberius himself
was worried about his reputation for disguising his real intentions,
dissimulatio, a quality without which he might well have failed to live
through Augustus’ reign.'!0 Later emperors at their accession went
through a pretence of rejecting the offer of imperial power; in Tiberius’
case, such a recusatio imperii might have been misunderstood because
there was no precedent for it. If Tiberius was genuine in not wishing to
take on all Augustus’ responsibilities, this is hardly likely to have been
because he was afraid that his claims would be disputed by one, or
possibly several, other candidates. Velleius Paterculus tells of the fear
and uncertainty that filled Rome at the time of Augustus’ death; not
everyone believed that the transfer of power would run smoothly. But
Velleius also makes it clear that the three main concentrations of legions,
in Spain, the Balkans, and on the Rhine, were all in the hands of generals

9 ‘Capaces imperii’: Tac. Aan. 1.13.2. Gallus: Oliver 1947 (c 382); Shotter 1971 (c 393). On M.

Lepidus, Syme 1970 (B 178).
10 On the Tabula Siarensisand Tiberius’ dissimulatio: Gonzalez 1984 (B 234); Zecchini 1986 (B 301).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

206 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

loyal to Tiberius. In Spain there was Marcus Lepidus (the consul of A.D.
6), who had been Tiberius’ legate in putting down the Pannonian revolt
between a.D. 6 and 9; in Pannonia, Tiberius had his own legates, in
particular Iunius Blaesus, and Germany was governed by Tiberius’
adopted son Germanicus. Tiberius had nothing to fear from any of these
generals; the soldiers themselves were not to transfer their allegiance
without trouble, but that was a question of discipline, not of high
politics. Even if Tiberius had already heard of the mutinies in the
Pannonian army which broke out as soon as the troops heard of the death
of Augustus, the commander to whom they had taken their oaths of
military service, it does not follow that such a threat of rebellion would
have been a real reason for declining the imperial office.

The Senate duly confirmed Tiberius’ succession to the cura bestowed
on his predecessor (and also granted him the title Augustus). Tiberius’
were not the only powers the Senate was required to confirm. On the
occasion when Augustus had adopted Tiberius into the Julian house-
hold, he had also made him adopt Germanicus, the son of Tiberius’
younger brother Drusus and of Antonia, daughter of Mark Antony and
Augustus’ sister Octavia. This formally made Germanicus Tiberius’
eldest son. Tiberius, in a.p. 14, was fifty-five. Should anything happen to
him, it would be Germanicus who would succeed as head of the domus
Caesaris.

The same session of the Senate also proposed to vote honours to
Livia; Tiberius expressed reservations about these, possibly because he
was embarrassed by suggestions that he derived his position from his
mother’s influence over Augustus. Other decisions relating to the extent
of Tiberius’ cura for the state were taken at the same meeting; in
particular, Tacitus says that Tiberius proclaimed a change in the
procedures for nominating candidates for magistracies. In future, the list
of nominations would be discussed by the Senate; four of the praetor-
ships would be filled by persons recommended by Tiberius, the other
places would be open to any candidates selected by the Senate (though
clearly the support ofthe princeps would be decisive here too). Formally,
the list would then go before the comitia centuriata for approval, just as
had happened in republican times; but competition for the votes of the
people now became a pure formality for candidates for the praetorship
(as it had been for candidates for the consulship since the time of Julius
Caesar). Candidates needed the support only of the emperor and of the
Senate. An important effect of this was to make it unnecessary for
quaestors and aediles who had an eye on a praetorship to win the favour
of the Roman plebs by putting on spectacular games. The giving of
games was one of the principal ways in which those who participated in
public life advertised their prestige. The poverty of such spectacles

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACCESSION OF TIBERIUS 207

under Tiberius is an aspect of the concentration of power in the hands of
the princeps, to the detriment both of the senatorial elite and of the
people.!!

Apart from the imperial household, the Senate and the people, the
emperor also had to control the army: as we have seen, Tiberius’ first act
after Augustus’ death was to inform every provincial army. Tacitus
describes in great detail the mutinies of the two most powerful groups of
legions, on the Rhine and the Danube; but we should not assume that
they were a serious threat in the same way as apparently similar events
were in A.D. 69 and A.D. 97. Augustus’ death gave the Roman conscripts
serving in Pannonia and Germany an opportunity to express their long-
repressed resentment at their terms of service. The Roman soldier’s oath
of loyalty was not only to the res publica, but to the individual imperator
who had called him up for that particular campaign. This was the first
time in almost half a century that an ‘mperator had died and needed to be
replaced by a new one — albeit one who had seen many years’ service both
in Pannonia and Germany. It was an appropriate occasion to demand
improvements in conditions of service. Tacitus describes these events as
a complete collapse of discipline, and maximizes both the moral disgrace
and the potential danger to Tiberius. He and other historians following
the same sources (probably Pliny the Elder’s Histories of the German Wars
and the younger Agrippina’s memoirs) agree that the Pannonian mutiny
was comparatively easy to control. The mutiny on the Rhine was
politically more significant because of the presence there of Germanicus,
whom these sources wish to represent as a potential alternative
emperor.!2

Tacitus’ account of the unrest among the Pannonian legions includes a
speech encapsulating the soldiers’ (largely legitimate) grievances, such as
long terms of service, often over twenty years, low pay and the
deduction of money to buy exemption from unpleasant duties, and the
quality of the land allotments granted to soldiers by the aerarium militare
on completion of their period of service. The speech is attributed to
Percennius, said to have been a professional claque-manager for the
Roman theatre-audiences before having been called up during the
emergency levy that followed the destruction of Varus’ three legions just
five years previously. The Pannonian commander, Quintus Iunius
Blaesus (cons. A.D. 10; uncle of the praetorian prefect L. Aelius Seianus)
was unable to prevent his soldiers from looting civilian settlements.
Although he promised to send his son, a tribune, to Rome at the head ofa
delegation to request improved terms of service, he was only able to

'! Elections: Levick 1967 (c 363).

'2 On the military secramentum: Campbell 1984 (D 173), pp. 19ff. Mutinies: Schmitt 1958 (C 391);
Sutherland 1987 (B 358) ch. 16.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

208 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

reimpose discipline when Tiberius’ son Drusus arrived on the scene with
two praetorian cohorts commanded by Sejanus (now described as co-
prefect of the guard along with his father, Lucius Seius Strabo). Tacitus
describes Tiberius’ decision to send his son as though it was a response to
a major threat; but we should remember that the theme of civil discord is
basic to the Annals.

The story told by Tacitus implies that the mutineers were by no means
inclined to accept Drusus’ promise to refer their complaints to Tiberius
as their commander, and through him to the Senate. But a coincidental
eclipse of the moon on the night of 25-6 September served them as an
excuse to back down, enabling Drusus to execute the two ringleaders
and return to Rome without even bothering to await the return of the
soldiers’ delegation to Tiberius.

The legions on the Lower Rhine, under the command of Aulus
Caecina Severus, also used the death of the smperator to whom they had
sworn their military oath as an occasion to express their discontent about
the unremitting military operations which Augustus had imposed upon
them for so many years. One theme which runs through Tacitus’ account
of the politics of Tiberius’ reign is the conflict between the widow and
children of Germanicus on the one hand, and Tiberius and his direct
descendants on the other. Even if this analysis (probably going back to
the younger Agrippina’s memoirs) were correct, it would be wrong to
accept the implication that Germanicus was a rival or a threat to Tiberius
during his lifetime. On the contrary, there is epigraphical and other
evidence that Germanicus was recognized as Tiberius’ successor by men
who had no wish to show disloyalty to Tiberius himself. When Ovid, in
exile at Tomi on the Black Sea, addressed Germanicus as a princeps, he
will hardly have assumed that he would be understood to want
Germanicus to be emperor in Tiberius’ place.'3

According to Tacitus, the major difference between the mutinies in
Pannonia and on the Rhine was that some of the soldiers on the Rhine
offered to make Germanicus emperor if he acceded to their demands. We
may be sceptical about how serious this offer was; an anecdote about a
soldier who was prepared to help kill Germanicus himself is just as likely
to be authentic. Whatever the political significance of the mutiny, it is
clear from Tacitus’ account that (some) soldiers who had completed long
terms of service had to be discharged, and that in return the legions on
both the lower and the upper Rhine were prepared to take the military
oath to their new smperator. But the arrival at Ara Ubiorum (Cologne) of
a delegation of senators sent by Tiberius led to renewed outbreaks of
insubordination, since the soldiers correctly feared that Tiberius would

13 Ov. Fast. 1.19. G. Herbert-Brown, Ovid and the Fasti (Oxford, 1994), ch. 5. An Ephesian
inscription describes Germanicus and Drusus together as the ‘New Dioscuri’ (SEG 1.515).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

REIGN OF TIBERIUS 209

use the authority of the Senate as an excuse to reject the newly won
concessions. The legate Lucius Munatius Plancus, who had been consul
in the previous year, was humiliated; and Germanicus ostentatiously
sent his wife and children (including the two-year-old Gaius, often
dressed in ‘little boots’ — hence his later name Caligula) away to safety at
Trier. Tacitus suggests that the mutiny was now so serious that
Germanicus should have called on the upper Rhine legions to suppress it
by force; in fact he seems to have been able to restore order without
difficulty at Cologne, and Caecina was able to do the same for the two
legions stationed at Xanten (when Germanicus inspected the bodies of
those executed, he claimed to be appalled at the catastrophe). The
mutinies on the Rhine and in Pannonia were not unimportant, but they
were by no means the threat either to Rome or to Tiberius that Tacitus,
or his sources, imply. Spectacular though the mutinies may have been,
they were an expression of Augustus’ failure, or inability, to provide for
the real costs of his military policy, rather than a threat to Tiberius.

II. THE REIGN OF TIBERIUuS!4

In the autumn of a.p. 14, and during the following two summers,
Germanicus employed his legions on a series of campaigns east of the
Rhine. Both archaeological and literary evidence indicates that there was
No serious attempt to expand the territory under direct Roman control.
These campaigns were fought for reasons of prestige, both for Rome —
whose reputation for military success had to be re-established after the
Varus disaster of A.D. 9 — and for Germanicus himself. The fact that
Germanicus received the news of Augustus’ death while organizing a
census of the Gallic provinces suggests that Augustus himself had
planned these campaigns; they did not contradict the advice he allegedly
appended to his summary of the resources of the empire, that its borders
should not be expanded. Augustus’ advice to his heir to restrict the
opportunities for commanders to acquire military gloria was not
intended to apply to Tiberius’ own adopted successor. Tacitus’ belief
that historiographical literature required long military narratives,
coupled with his desire to heroize Germanicus, gave him the oppor-
tunity for an epic account of a visit to the site of the defeat of Varus’ army
and the reburial of the corpses of the slain, and of a heroic retreat through
the north German marshes. This does not hide the fact that Germanicus
‘achieved nothing of permanence — and probably did not intend to.!5
We should not accept Tacitus’ suggestion that Tiberius was jealous of
any successes Germanicus might achieve, and therefore recalled him

4 Tiberius’ reign: seen. 5 above. The main narrative sources are: Tac. Aan. t—v1; Suet. Tib.; Dio,
tvi-Lyint; Vell. Pat. 1.123-31, with Woodman 1977 (B 202). 'S Koestermann 1937 (C 362).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

210 §- TIBERIUS TO NERO

after two years. He wanted to make it clear to the Germans that
Augustus’ death did not mean the end of Roman military efforts on the
northern frontiers. He also wanted Germanicus to win enough glory to
make his virtus manifest; consequently he awarded his adopted son and
successor a full triumph, the highest mark of military distinction, in A.D.
17. In the following year Tiberius made Germanicus’ position as his
designated successor explicit by sharing his third consulship with him.

It was because of a genuine concern that his successor should have the
experience required of a ruler that Tiberius sent Germanicus on a tour of
the eastern half of the empire in this year. There were precedents from
the Augustan period: Agrippa, Tiberius himself, and Gaius Caesar had
all ruled the east of the empire for a time when they had been heirs-
apparent. Some practical tasks had to be performed. King Archelaus of
Cappadocia had died at Rome in a.p. 17 (of natural causes, but
exacerbated by the hostility shown by his patronus Tiberius). In order to
help solve the shortage of funds for military pay, Tiberius wanted
Cappadocia integrated into the empire as a province (see ch. 14a).
Germanicus was also to oversee the fiscal administration of Palmyra, and
inspect earthquake damage suffered by several cities of Asia in A.D. 17.
As his adviser Tiberius appointed Cnaeus Calpurnius Piso — who had
been his colleague as consul in 7 B.c. — to accompany him as legate of
Syria. Tacitus insinuates that the intention was to use Piso to control
Germanicus. If we abandon the idea that Tiberius and Germanicus
mistrusted each other, then Piso’s task as a trusted amicus of the domus
Caesaris was simply to give support and advice. But Piso’s advice was
irksome to Germanicus; it may be that he restrained Germanicus from
engaging in unnecessary military adventures against the Parthians to
enhance his own glory. In any case, Piso’s bad temper was notorious.
Germanicus avoided further advice from Piso by travelling to Egypt
(from which Roman senators were excluded), where his attempts to win
popularity by opening the grain reserves may have had the effect of
exacerbating a grain shortage at Rome. Tiberius was displeased, and Piso
misinterpreted his displeasure as permission to quarrel with Germani-
cus. Germanicus formally renounced the amicitia between Piso and the
domus Caesaris. Piso had no option but to leave Syria. Unfortunately
Germanicus died soon after (10 October A.D. 19), and Piso (despite the
warnings of his consilium) thought he could return to take control of his
province again. If Germanicus had acted provocatively, Piso’s reaction
was simply treasonable; he was arrested and sent to Rome to be tried
before the Senate on the charge of having waged war ona province of the
Roman people. Agrippina, bearing the ashes of her husband to Rome
with her, saw to it that he was also accused of having had Germanicus
poisoned; the charge was pressed by Publius Vitellius, who had been one

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

REIGN OF TIBERIUS 211

of Germanicus’ generals in Germany and whose brothers were to be
loyal supporters of Germanicus’ son Caligula and brother Claudius.
There was no evidence to support it. But despite Tiberius’ efforts to
ensure that the affair was handled openly and fairly, Piso’s suicide was
later taken as a sign that he had done away with Germanicus — on
Tiberius’ orders.!6

The death of Germanicus meant that Tiberius’ other son, his natural
son Drusus, was now the heir-apparent. That is suggested by coins
celebrating the birth of Drusus’ twin sons in A.D. 19/20 (only one, known
as Tiberius Gemellus,:-was to survive). Drusus’ position was fully
confirmed when Tiberius shared his fourth consulship with him in A.p.
21; and in April 22 he was formally granted ¢tribunicia potestas. Agrippina
may have felt that Fortune had cheated her of the chance of becoming an
emperor’s wife, but she was not justified in laying the blame for this on
Tiberius; nor is there evidence that she did so at this stage. It was in the
memoirs of her daughter, Agrippina the Younger, that the picture of
Germanicus as a new Alexander, poisoned in his prime, was created, and
Tiberius attacked for failing to mourn him properly — though we may
note that Tiberius made a point of his moderatio in mourning all his
relatives, as in other respects; Seneca refers to the restraint he had shown
when he had to arrange the obsequies for his own brother, Drusus, in 9
B.C.17

This moderatio did not imply restraint in protecting himself against
those foolish enough to think that they had a claim to be emperor in his
place. Accusations of sorcery were brought against Marcus Scribonius
Libo, a great-grandson of Pompey and grand-nephew of Scribonia, who
had been Augustus’ wife and the mother of the elder Iulia; he was
convicted (3 September a.p. 16), and on his aunt’s advice killed
himself.!8 And despite insinuations to the contrary, Tiberius exercised
his cura over the provinces efficiently — taking care that too much military
virtue should not be displayed by provincial governors. The need to
suppress a rebellion in the province of Africa led by a romanized military
leader called Tacfarinas brought into the open the question of whom the
emperor could trust, and whom he could not. The proconsul of Africa
was the only man apart from the princeps who commanded a legion under
his own imperium (though the emperor would take the credit for his
victories, too). Tiberius asked the Senate to appoint an extraordinary
commander. Two candidates were proposed, both presumably known

6 Koestermann 1958 (c 363); Hennig 1972 (c 353); Sutherland 1987 (B 358) ch. 19. On Tiberius’
own network of patronage in the East, Levick 1971 (c 156). Piso’s temper: Sen. Ira 1.18.3ff. Egypt:
EJ? 320, 379 = AN 557, 558. Funeral honours for Germanicus: Gonzalez 1984 (B 234).

7 Drusus’ twins: EJ? 91. Moderatio: Levick 1976 (c 366); Sutherland 1987 (B 358), ch. 23.

'8 Libo: Weinrib 1967 (c 411)

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

212 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

to be loyal servants of the princeps: Marcus Lepidus and Iunius Blaesus
(suffect consul in A.D. 10). Perhaps out of deference to Blaesus’ nephew
Sejanus, Tiberius’ trusted praetorian prefect, Lepidus withdrew his
candidature. Blaesus would not misuse the ornamenta triumphalia he was
awarded for the expected victory.

Gaul, too, suffered from rebellion at this time, because of heavier
taxation to pay for the army and perhaps also as a result of the cessation
of military activity involving Gallic units in Roman operations against
Germany. Tacitus’ account mentions the leaders as Florus and Sacrovir,
and implies that druids were involved. But he describes the crisis very
much in terms of Vindex’s uprising in A.D. 68, criticizing Tiberius for
failing to go in person to defeat the rebels as though he was behaving as
thoughtlessly as Nero did in 68.

One of the roots of Tiberius’ later reputation for failing to exercise the
responsibilities of an emperor was his own emphasis on moderatio,
including a willingness to allow a plurality of opinions to be aired in the
Senate when what senators wanted him to do was give a clear indication
of what his own sententia was. Another was his lack of interest in
spectacles — when the people of Trebia asked him what to do with money
their city had been left, he told them to build a road rather than a theatre.
Most crucially, he was physically absent from Rome. Augustus had often
been away from the capital, but that was to take command of wars or to
supervise provincial affairs. Tiberius went to Campania, where rich
Romans had traditionally spent their holidays. His reasons may some-
times have been valid — between a.D. 21-22 he spent twenty months
away from Rome, probably to avoid a period of pestilence. When his
mother fell ill, Tiberius returned at once.!9

But Tiberius’ absences resulted in a failure to control proceedings in
the Senate. That was one of the elements responsible for the series of
accusations of treason, matestas, which made his reign so distasteful to
later senatorial historians. For ambitious men with rhetorical ability,
such prosecutions were the most effective way to get to the top now that
Tiberius’ policy of military retrenchment made it more difficult for ‘new
men’ to demonstrate their virtus in the military field. A successful
prosecutor would manage to eliminate a personal enemy, win acclaim for
his rhetorical ability, receive at least one quarter of the goods of the
convicted, and gain the emperor’s gratitude — possibly resulting in
appointment to the highest offices. While Tiberius remained in Rome, he
did his best to restrain de/atores in order to minimize the insecurity they
created. Tacitus suggests, and coins confirm, that Tiberius made much
of his self-restraint, moderatio, in rejecting the weapon of maiestas-

19 Trebia: Suet. Tib. 31. Tiberius’ absences from Rome: Syme 1986 (a 95) 24; Stewart 1977 (F
$83), Orth 1970 (c 384), Houston 198 5 (Cc 357). Livia: Sutherland 1987 (B 358) ch. 20.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

REIGN OF TIBERIUS 213

accusations against senators during these years. The emperor could
intervene to exercise the imperial virtue of clementia; in A.D. 22 he allowed
Decimus Iunius Silanus to return from the exile that had been forced
upon him when Augustus had revoked his amicitia because of Decimus’
association with the younger Iulia during the crisis of aA.p. 8. Tiberius did
not, however, feel that Decimus could be allowed to return to public
life.20

Another important effect of Tiberius’ absences from the capital was to
increase the importance of Aelius Sejanus, now the sole praetorian
prefect, as the channel of communication between senators and the
emperor. During these years Sejanus greatly strengthened his police
powers in Rome by concentrating the praetorian cohorts in a single,
permanent camp (one of the first military camps to have a permanent
stone wall). There is no reason to believe that the immediate objective
was anything more sinister than to impose better discipline on the
soldiers; but the camp was also a suitable place to keep political
prisoners.

The death of Drusus on 14 September a.pb. 23 ended for the time being
any hopes Tiberius had of leaving his power in the hands of a son, natural
or adopted, who would be old enough and experienced enough to rule.
Perhaps Drusus would not have been an ideal emperor. Like his father,
he was a heavy drinker; it was said that he had once physically attacked
Sejanus during a drinking party. The story was one of the arguments
later advanced in support of allegations that Sejanus had poisoned
Drusus, but these inventions postdated Sejanus’ fall; the two had been
loyal colleagues and friends for many years, and the summer of A.D. 23
was another particularly unhealthy one. Tiberius made a point of being
present in Rome to give the funeral speech.

The question of the succession was now open again. By early A.D. 23,
two of Germanicus’ sons had already come of age; to strengthen their
position, their mother Agrippina asked Tiberius to provide her with a
new husband. It is possible that she had Asinius Gallus in mind. One of
his sons, Asinius Saloninus, had been betrothed to a daughter of
Germanicus, but died in a.p. 22, before the marriage could take place;
two other sons of Gallus were consuls during these years, C. Asinius
Pollio in 23, and Marcus Asinius Agrippa in 25 (but he died in the
following year). Tiberius would not allow Nero and Drusus to come
under the protection of such a powerful stepfather, particularly one
whom he loathed.

The emperor’s concern that Germanicus’ sons might replace him was

2 Bauman 1974 (F 641). Nero cut rewards to one fourth: Suet. Nerv. 10. Dig. 37.14.10 (Antistius

Labeo) on the accused’s immediate exclusion from the emperor’s amititia. Moderatio and clementia: n.
17 above.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

214 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

shared by the praetorian prefect Sejanus. Sejanus’ own interest in
Tiberius’ survival was illustrated by an incident in A.D. 26.21 While
Tiberius was on his way to his villa at Capri, part of the ceiling of a grotto
near Terracina collapsed on the imperial party during a dinner. Sejanus
threw himself upon Tiberius, convincing him of the genuineness of his
loyalty. In the previous year Tiberius had had doubts about Sejanus: he
refused a request that he should be allowed to marry Drusus’ widow
Livilla (Livia Iulia). Sejanus may have been a loyal supporter of the
dynasty, like his father and perhaps grandfather before him, but that did
not give him sufficient status to rank with the republican nobility. Even
his wife’s family had only been consular for one generation. In Tiberius’
opinion, Sejanus would not have had the political influence needed to
protect Tiberius Gemellus against the claims of Agrippina’s children. In
any case, he had every intention of remaining alive for many years to
come, and was supported in this by the prognostications of his personal
astrologer Thrasyllus.

Tiberius had been 66 in the previous November. At an age when other
Roman senators could look forward to retiring from public life, he saw
no escape from the responsibilities inherited from Augustus. It is not
surprising that he should have preferred to stay away from Rome, even
for the funeral of his mother Livia in a.D. 29. The question of the
succession will have been a major source of conflict between mother and
son; Tiberius Gemellus was Livia’s great-grandson, but so (through
Drusus) were Agrippina’s three sons, and Augustus had clearly indi-
cated in his will that the succession should ultimately go to them. Solong
as Livia was alive, she could protect them against Tiberius’ displeasure.
Livia’s funeral oration was given by Gaius Caligula, whom Livia had
taken into her own domus. Soon after the funeral, Sejanus hadAgrippina,
Nero and Drusus arrested. Caligula had not been allowed to don the toga
virilis yet, and consequently could not be treated as a political threat. He
moved to the house of his grandmother the younger Antonia, who
protected the interests of the supporters of her son Germanicus as well as
she could during the years of Sejanus’ supremacy.

Following her funeral, Livia was awarded full divine honours by the
Senate, similar to those awarded to her husband on his death (there were
minor differences, as protocol required; for instance the image of the
divus was carried by a four-horse chariot, while the diva Augusta had to be
satisfied with two horses). Her will was notable for the enormous legacy
she bestowed on the young Servius Sulpicius Galba (born 3 B.c.); a
relative of Livia’s, Livia Ocellina, was his stepmother and had adopted
him. Tiberius was understandably upset by the size of the legacy — 50
million sesterces — and apparently held back even the revised sum of

2 Stewart 1977 (F 583).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

REIGN OF TIBERIUS 215

500,000 he was prepared to countenance. Galba’s elder brother (cos. A.D.
22) had already attracted his disfavour, and was later forced to commit
suicide (¢. A.D. 36). Livia’s legacy demonstrated both her displeasure at
her son and a belief that Galba was worthy of holding a central position
on the public stage. After Livia’s death, Galba had the support of
Antonia (and later of Caligula). His wife was probably the daughter of
M. Aemilius Lepidus, capax imperii, the consul of a.p. 6; another of
Lepidus’ daughters married Drusus, son of Germanicus. Galba himself
had already won the praetorship (it is not certain in what year he held it,
but we are told of the tightrope-walking elephants he presented at the
Floralia). In a.p. 33, he was consul ordinarius. It is not surprising that
Tiberius, having worked out his horoscope, should have said that the
young Galba was destined to be emperor one day.

Although Tacitus insinuates that one of Tiberius’ main motives for
leaving Rome had been to avoid his mother, her death made him no
more willing to return. His absence did not mean that he ceased to
control the empire; but it allowed Sejanus to monopolize the infor-
mation and advice about events in the capital on the basis of which
Tiberius’ decisions were taken. Sejanus had already made clear to the
emperor his readiness to marry Drusus’ widow Livilla, and thus
immediately become the stepfather of Tiberius’ grandson and intended
successor, and in due course perhaps the father of further children who
would be eligible for imperial office. So long as Sejanus’ stepson, or his
own children, were still too young for this office, he could fulfil the role
that Augustus had intended Tiberius to play for Germanicus. Tiberius
understood this ambition, though it is not clear whether he was now
prepared to allow the marriage.22 What he did do was appoint Sejanus,
although he was nota senator, consul ordinarius for A.D. 31, and he publicly
demonstrated the extent to which the praetorian prefect was ‘partner of
his labours’ by holding his own fifth consulship as Sejanus’ colleague.
His third consulship had been held with Germanicus, his fourth with
Drusus: in both cases this was a way of indicating who was the heir-
apparent. Sejanus’ election was held on the Aventine hill, traditionally
associated with the urban plebs, and the gifts and shows granted on this
occasion were for them a welcome contrast to the neglect which
Tiberius’ electoral reforms had occasioned, since such bids for popular-
ity now normally had little point.23

For Tiberius, the public recognition of another potential successor
could only increase his freedom of manoeuvre v25-d-vis the children of

22 Only a late source, John of Antioch (FHG tv. 70) states that Tiberius ‘called him his child {ie.,
son-in-law] and successor’.

23 Syme 1956 (B 288). The inprobae comitiae are mentioned in ILS 6044= EJ? 53= AN 101. On
Sejanus, Meise 1969 (c 375) ch. 4; Hennig 1975 (c 354); Woodman 1977 (8 202).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

216 §. TIBERIUS TO NERO

Agrippina. For Sejanus, on the other hand, the elimination of Agrip-
pina’s children as candidates was essential for the success of his dynastic
ambitions. Nero and Drusus were accused of plotting against the
emperor by a relative of Sejanus, Cassius Longinus (probably Lucius,
who was consul ordinarius in A.D. 30, rather than his brother Gaius, the
famous jurist (see ch. 21), who was a suffect consul in the same year). The
fact that the Cassii Longini were related to the Caesaricide Cassius did
not make them republicans, though that was what Gaius was to be
accused of by Nero after the conspiracy of Piso many years later. The
threat posed by Nero and Drusus to Tiberius and to the succession of
Gemellus (with or without Sejanus as his stepfather) was real. Even after
the elimination of Sejanus, Tiberius took no steps to release Drusus from
prison. It is likely that Agrippina and her sons, seeing the danger that
Sejanus represented, thought it necessary to plan for Tiberius’ removal
before Sejanus’ position had become unchallengeable.

It was Germanicus’ mother the younger Antonia, the young men’s
grandmother, who warned Tiberius in a letter delivered to him person-
ally through her freedman M. Antonius Pallas that Sejanus’ consoli-
dation of his power was not just aimed against Agrippina and her
children, but beginning to threaten Tiberius’ own chances of political
survival. With Sejanus as protector of Tiberius’ heir, and no other
candidates for the Principate surviving, Tiberius’ own role would have
been played out..And given that it was Sejanus who was responsible for
Tiberius’ personal security, Antonia must have pointed out to him that
Sejanus would have no further interest in keeping Tiberius alive once
Agrippina and her offspring no longer existed. It was a powerful
argument, and Tiberius summoned Germanicus’ remaining son, Gaius
Caligula, to the safety of his household at Capri. He did not prevent
Sejanus from executing Nero.

In over seventeen years as emperor, Tiberius had not ordered the
execution of one single senator. The old man’s well-planned and efficient
elimination of Sejanus on 18 October A.D. 31 consequently came as a
great shock to Rome. His agent was another equestrian public servant,
Sutorius Macro, prefect of the urban vigi/es: he brought two letters from
Tiberius. One was read out to the Senate in Sejanus’ presence; it was
lengthy and impenetrable (in Juvenal’s words, ‘grandis et verbosa’) and
only after a long time did it come to the point: Sejanus was denounced as
a traitor. While the Senate, and Sejanus himself had been kept guessing,
Macro took command of the praetorians, authorized by Tiberius’ second
letter. Sejanus had expected to be granted tribunicia potestas as Tiberius’
colleague. Instead he found himself stripped of his office and arrested.
He was executed the same day; so were his wife and daughter. It was

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

REIGN OF TIBERIUS 217

claimed that eight years before, Sejanus and Livilla had together
poisoned Tiberius’ son, Livilla’s husband Drusus.

Sejanus’ fall enabled a number of figures who had been supporters of
Germanicus to return to the centre of the political stage, under the
protection of the younger Antonia. Some of them were to give support
to the regimes of her grandson Caligula, and then her son Claudius.
Lucius Vitellius, who was to become Claudius’ principal adviser and the
father of another later emperor, was consul ordinarius in A.D. 34, and in 35 a
suffect consulship was held by his friend Valerius Asiaticus from Vienne,
whose son was to be betrothed to the emperor Vitellius’ daughter, and
whose grandson was to be a powerful figure into the next century (M.
Lollius Paulinus Decimus Valerius Asiaticus Saturninus, cos. A.D. 94,
cos. II a.p. 125). Flavius Sabinus (praefectus urbi under Nero, Otho and
Vitellius, and the brother of Vespasian), entered the Senate in A.D. 34 or
35. Galba has already been mentioned; his successor as suffect consul in
A.D. 33 was Lucius Salvius Otho, whose father, a novus homo, had reached
the praetorship early in Tiberius’ reign as a result of the favour of Livia.
Otho’s daughter had once been betrothed to Germanicus’ son Drusus;
his elder son Lucius Titianus was to reach the consulship in 52, become
proconsul of Asia, and like his father, promagister of the Arval Brethren;
his younger son became emperor.”4

On the other hand the overthrow of Sejanus did not make any
difference to Tiberius’ hostility to Agrippina herself. Neither she nor
Drusus were released from prison or exile, and they both died in a.p. 33.
Her daughters could be made harmless without being killed. In 33,
Tiberius married Drusilla to Lucius Cassius Longinus, and Germanicus’
youngest daughter, Iulia Livilla, to the powerful and loyal Marcus
Vinicius; his grandfather, the consul of 19 B.c., had been one of Tiberius’
early generals in Illyricum and won the ornamenta triumphalia for his
services in Germany. The father, consul ordinarius in A.D. 2, was highly
regarded as an orator; Vinicius himself had been consul in A.D. 30 (the
year in which Velleius Paterculus dedicated his history to him), and
perhaps was among those who felt insulted, if not threatened, by
Sejanus’ predominance. By entrusting Livilla to him, Tiberius was
marking him out as someone to whom the empire too might be
entrusted; and indeed (despite Caligula’s banishment of Livilla in 39)

% The prosopography of individuals’ careers and family relationships often has to be based on
epigraphical evidence and chance remarks in literature. Many questions remain unresolved (e.g. the
relationship to each other and to the Caesars of different Scribonii and Pisones). Family background
was an essential element of imperial biography, but even Suetonius’ lives (Galba, Otho, Vitellius and
Divus Vespasianus) contain unreliable or ambiguous statements. For Valerius Asiaticus, cf. Tac. Hist.
1.59; for the clients of Germanicus and Antonia the Younger, see Gallotta 1988 (c 348); Kokkinos
1992 (c 364).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

218 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

Vinicius was powerful enough to be the major contender for the
succession after Caligula’s removal in 41. The third daughter, Agrippina
the Younger, had already been married in a.p. 28, to Cn. Domitius
Ahenobarbus (cos. A.D. 32). Through his mother Antonia the Elder, he
was the grandson of Mark Antony and Augustus’ sister Octavia. It is
hardly surprising that the couple avoided having children so long as
Tiberius was alive. Only in the last year of Tiberius’ life was Ahenobar-
bus exiled on a charge of incest with his sister, Domitia Lepida. Tiberius
also forced Asinius Gallus to end his life in a.p. 33, after three years of
house-arrest. Tiberius’ hatred for him went much further back than
Gallus’ association with Agrippina and alleged support for Sejanus.
Nevertheless three of his sons survived to take office again under
Caligula (Servius Asinius Celer, cos. 38, executed in 47; Asinius Gallus,
banished in 46; and Asinius Pollio, proconsul of Asia 38/39).

Tacitus notes that the attacks on Sejanus and Livilla in the Senate were
led by ‘men with the great names Scipio, Silanus, Cassius’. If Tacitus
wished to imply that the political significance of these men derived from
their republican ancestry, that was not the whole story. Their links with
the domus Caesaris mattered as much, if not more. These men, and others,
used the freedom provided by Tiberius’ absence from Rome to indulge
in an orgy of recrimination, accusing their personal opponents of having
been associated with Sejanus. Some of those who suffered were no doubt
indeed close associates of Sejanus — though it is interesting that even his
uncle, Quintus Iunius Blaesus, was not formally condemned and
executed, but committed suicide after Tiberius renounced his amicitia.
Blaesus’ two sons even survived until 36. Indeed, some of those keenest
to attack Sejanus’ memory were related to him: the grandfather of the
two Cassii, Quintus Aelius Tubero, had been Sejanus’ stepfather. The
trials of the next few years were certainly not the result of any plan by
Tiberius to round up those who had participated in Sejanus’ ‘conspiracy’
against him: there had been no such conspiracy.

But it suited other political figures to suggest that there had. The
charge of association with Sejanus was used as a cover for political,
family and personal hatreds in such a way as to give the impression that
there must have been a major conspiracy organized by Sejanus in which
half the Senate had been involved. Rumour exaggerated his power to
such an extent that it was even said that Tiberius had given instructions
that, if Sejanus’ supporters in the praetorian guard posed a threat,
Germanicus’ children might have to be released from prison to act as a
rallying-point for those loyal to the dynasty. But the minute number of
those directly convicted of being Sejanus’ associates suggests that they
were not executed for being conspirators, but because they might resent
the way in which a loyal servant and his wife and daughter had been dealt

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

REIGN OF TIBERIUS 219

with by Tiberius. Had Sejanus managed to remove all the offspring of
Germanicus, he might have been a real threat to Tiberius. As it was, the
conspirator was not Sejanus, but Tiberius.

Tacitus blames Tiberius for the deaths of a considerable number of
people accused of maiestas (as he does for virtually any other death during
these years, whether from sickness or old age, like that of Manius
Lepidus, or by suicide like that of L. Arruntius). If Tiberius was to
blame, then it was by omission: his absence from Rome lifted any
restraint on de/atores who made use of treason-accusations to attack their
personal rivals or simply to enrich themselves. Maiestas-accusations at
this time had the great advantage to the accuser that they were based on
the accused’s dissatisfaction with an emperor; hence those accused lost
the emperor’s amicitia the moment they were charged, and that meant
that their public careers (and usually their lives) came to an immediate
end. One of the first to suffer this fate was C. Annius Pollio, accused in
A.D. 32; he had been suffect consul in 21 or 22. His son Lucius Annius
Vinicianus was accused with him, but was to survive to become consul
suffect, probably under Caligula, and important enough to be considered
an imperial candidate after Caligula’s assassination. But not all treason-
accusations resulted in conviction. One who survived was C. Appius
Iunius Silanus (cos. 28).

Tiberius’ main concern during these years continued to be to ensure
the succession of his grandson Tiberius Gemellus. His astrologer seems
to have persuaded him that he would survive to see Gemellus old
enough to succeed him. Consequently there was no danger in honouring
Caligula: he was made a member of the college of augurs and a pontifex
and in 33 he held the office of quaestor. At some time during these years,
Tiberius tried to bring Caligula more firmly under his control by
marrying him to Iunia Claudilla, the daughter of his old supporter
Marcus Silanus (cos. A.D. 15). Also in 33, Tiberius’ granddaughter Livia
Iulia was remarried; her husband was the relatively insignificant Gaius
Rubellius Blandus (cos. suff. A.D. 18, and grandson of Tiberius’ rhetoric
teacher). Tiberius will have assumed that they and their descendants
would represent no threat to Gemellus, though many years later Nero
was to be sufficiently frightened of their son Rubellius Plautus to have
him killed in a.p. 62. Together with Domitius Ahenobarbus, Marcus
Vinicius and Cassius Longinus, Blandus was publicly honoured as one of
the emperor’s grandsons-in-law, progeneri Caesaris. When large areas of
Rome were destroyed by fire in a.p. 36, the four of them were appointed
to supervise the distribution of aid on Tiberius’ behalf.25

Tiberius continued to carry out his other duties as princeps with equal
efficiency. Not only did he help those members of the Roman plebs

25 Blandus: Syme 1982 (c 401) Progeneri Caesaris: Tac. Ann. v1.45.3-

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

220 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

whose houses had been destroyed by fire, he intervened to avoid a major
crisis of credit in A.D. 33, apparently caused by a shortage of coin;
although the economic significance of Tiberius’ actions has been grossly
overestimated by modern historians applying anachronistic economic
models to antiquity, it was thought to be part of an emperor’s duties to
ensure that the wealthy could feel secure in the possession of their
property. In another respect too Tiberius’ reign was a period when the
security of those with property increased, through the continuing
development of Roman jurisprudence by the so-called ‘schools’ of jurists
whose legal opinions were backed by the emperor’s authority. In
comparison, Tiberius’ own absence from the courtrooms of Rome will
have made little difference, though it made life more difficult for those
who sought privileges (and would have to travel to Campania) and was a
major reason for the emperor’s increasing unpopularity. Claudius
attacked ‘the constant absence of my uncle’ in a surviving edict.”

It is less clear how much attention he devoted to providing good
government for provincials; although he was credited with telling
Aemilius Rectus, a later prefect of Egypt, that ‘good governors shear
their sheep, they do not strip them’, there is no reason for believing that
he took a personal interest in initiating accusations against governors for
corruption, or that the reason why he left his legates in charge of the
same province for years on end was that this would make them less
greedy. Poppaeus Sabinus served as legate of Moesia from A.p. 11 until
35. Tiberius himself complained to the Senate about the unwillingness of
consulars to accept their obligation to govern distant provinces.
Nevertheless the old emperor was clearly afraid that change might mean
trouble; Augustus too had kept governors on in their respective
commands after the crisis of A.D. 9. One reason why a legate might be left
in charge of an army was that Tiberius feared that he would rebel if he
tried to recall him: the governor of the upper Rhine army, Lentulus
Gaetulicus, is reported to have come to an unofficial arrangement
whereby he promised to cause no trouble for Tiberius so long as he was
not recalled. Gaetulicus must have calculated, rightly, that Tiberius’
reign would soon be over. But where the good of the Republic required
it, Tiberius was still capable of taking decisions. In a.D. 35 Lucius
Vitellius was sent to Syria as legate, to intervene in the affairs of Armenia
by imposing a Roman nominee, Tiridates, on the throne.??

Despite his firm belief that he would live for another ten years,

% Finance and credit: Rodewald 1976 (B 348); Sutherland 1987 (B 358) ch. 24. Jurisprudence: chs
12 and 21 below. Note Sejanus’ relationships with Aelius Tubero and the Cassii; and his son
Decimus Capito Aclianus may have been adopted by C. Ateius Capito. Claudius blames the ‘absentia
pertinaci patrui mei’ for failure to resolve the citizen status of the Anauni: ILS 206.

7 Provinces: Orth 1970 (c 384); Rectus: Dio Lvit.10.5.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GAIUS CALIGULA 221

Tiberius died on 16 March A.p. 37 at Misenum, while on a journey back
to the capital. The following day was the feast of the Liberalia,
traditionally one of the days suitable for bestowing the foga virilis ona
boy. If Tiberius had intended to perform this ceremony for Gemellus
before presenting him to the Senate and people at Rome as his heir, then
his death was remarkably opportune for Caligula. The inevitable rumour
had it that Caligula and Macro helped Tiberius on his way by smothering
him with a pillow. In any case Gemellus was still a child, and in no
position to stop Caligula from taking command of the domus Caesaris.

III. GAIUS CALIGULA

The popular rejoicing that greeted the news of Tiberius’ death was not
just a reaction against an unpopular princeps who in his last years had
failed to provide Rome with his presence and consequently with the
public shows and other beneficia that a Roman ruler owed his supporters.
There was also a positive welcome for the Principate of Caligula, the
surviving son of Germanicus, a man who had been destined by Augustus
to be head of the domus Caesaris only to be robbed of his expectations by
premature death. On 18 March, two days after Tiberius’ death, the
Senate met and acclaimed Caligula, and Caligula alone, as emperor.
Caligula and Macro hastened to Rome ahead of Tiberius’ body; they
arrived on 28 March, and Caligula attended a meeting of the Senate
which confirmed his position (there is no need to assume that he had
made a pretence of refusing the imperial acclamation of 18 March).?° It
was probably at this point that Tiberius’ will was produced; in accord-
ance with normal Roman custom, he had instituted his two grandsons,
natural and adopted, as equal heirs. But the domus Caesaris was not a
normal household; its formal division between the two brothers — which
was what the will required ~ would have had disastrous political results,
even if it had been possible in practice. There was no precedent at Rome
for one household to be headed by two patresfamilias. Only in the time of
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in the 160s A.D. would the position of
‘Caesar’ become sufficiently recognizable as a public office to make the
concept ofa college of equal emperors feasible. In any case Gemellus was
still a child and could hold no public office. Caligula alone was
recognized as Tiberius’ heir. As a standard justification for the setting
aside of the will, it was declared that Tiberius had been insane.

% Tacitus does not survive for Caligula: we have Dio tix and Suet. Calig. The acta of the Arval
Brethren survive for the period January 38 to June 40 (=GCN 1-11). Caligula’s personality
continues to attract interpretations in terms of psychosis. The most far-reaching attempt at a
rehabilitation remains Balsdon 1934 (c 331). For a conservative account, see Barrett 1989 (C 333).

2» Timpe 1962 (c 403); for date of acclamation and recusatio, Jakobson and Cotton 1985 (¢ 358).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

222 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

Communities and officials in East and West swore their loyalty to
Caligula and to his domus. Caligula’s speech at Tiberius’ funeral on 3
April emphasized that he was Germanicus’ son, and proclaimed a return
to the style of Augustus. Although the dead emperor’s apotheosis was
duly reported, as Augustus’ had been, he was too unpopular for the
Senate to grant him divine honours. (The mint at Lyons erroneously
struck aurei and denarii depicting Tiberius as divine.) Caligula promised
formally to adopt Gemellus and honoured him as princeps inventutis. This
both labelled him as too young to be a serious alternative to Caligula, and
removed any justification his supporters might have for resentment
against the emperor.*°

The immediate requirement if the new regime was to establish itself
was the distribution of beneficia to Romans of all classes. Tiberius’ will
had promised the praetorians a donative of 500 sesterces each; by giving
them twice as much, Caligula set the precedent that the loyalty of the
guard should be bought by their new imperator, instead of being
rewarded by the old one at his death. The fact that sesterces representing
the emperor addressing his praetorian cohorts appear to have been
produced throughout his reign suggests that these donatives were
repeated. Caligula also demonstrated his care for the people; inscriptions
confirm that 75 sesterces were distributed to the entire citizen population
of Rome on 1 Juneand 19 July. In pointed contrast to Tiberius, Caligula
spared no expense in providing the plebs with games; the very first
privilege he requested from the Senate was for permission to exceed the
statutory number of gladiators. He is also said to have returned the right
to elect praetors to the comitia. What that meant in practice was that
potential candidates for the praetorship — notably the aediles — would try
to win popularity by putting on much more lavish games than they had
needed to under Tiberius. Caligula also inaugurated a grandiose pro-
gramme of public building, on the Palatine hill and elsewhere, to make
up for Tiberius’ years of neglect. It will have been these plans, rather
than the distributions of cash (which cannot have come to more than 150
million sesterces) that lie behind the accusation that Caligula squandered
the 2.7 billion sesterces reported to have been left by Tiberius.

At the same time, Caligula did what he could to win the support of the
upper classes; he refused the title pater patriae on the grounds that he was
too young, recalled exiles, and made a public show of burning Tiberius’
private papers without (heclaimed, falsely) having read the contents. An
early sestertius with the legend ‘For Citizens Saved’ advertises his claim to
have restored the security of the law. The backlog of legal business for

3© Oaths: GCN 32= AN 562, from Aritium in Lusitania: 11 May 37; GCN 33 = AN 563, from

Assus in the Troad. Tiberius’ funeral: Dio L1x.3.7. The inscription on Gemellus’ tomb shows that
no formal adoption in fact occurred: ILS 172.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GAIUS CALIGULA 223

which Tiberius’ absence from Rome was blamed was tackled by adding a
fifth panel of jurors and allowing magistrates’ sentences to be carried out
without the need for imperial confirmation.

The new emperor’s policy towards client kings should also be seen
primarily as an attempt to ensure that the network of hellenistic rulers
which was an integral part of the Roman empire had close personal links
with the reigning Caesar. The fact that some of them were related to
Caligula through Antony, and some had been brought up together with
him in the house of Antonia the Younger, also helped to bind them and
their territorial resources to him; but the great-grandson of Antony had
no grand plan to resolve the conflict between East and West.*2 The three
Thracian princes, Cotys, Polemo and Rhoemetalces, to whom he
granted the kingdoms of Lesser Armenia, Pontus and eastern Thrace,
were probably cousins. The son of the last king of Commagene was
given back his father’s kingdom, plus the taxes extracted by the Romans
over the intervening twenty years. The Jewish prince Marcus lulius
Agrippa (usually known as Herod Agrippa I) was also presented with
extensive domains. We should be sceptical of later accusations that these
kings trained Caligula in the ways of oriental (ie. hellenistic) despotism.

Caligula was particularly keen to draw attention to his family
relationships in order to stress that (by implication, unlike Tiberius) he
deserved loyalty because he was a Caesar by descent and not just by
adoption. He went in person to bring back to Rome the ashes of his
exiled mother and brother Nero for interment in the mausoleum built for
the Caesars by Augustus. Coins show his mother Agrippina and
grandfather Agrippa, his brothers Nero and Drusus on horseback, and
his sisters Agrippina, Drusilla and Iulia Livilla holding the attributes of
‘Security’, ‘Concord’ and ‘Good Fortune’. The three sisters were given
the honours due to Vestal Virgins. Caligula’s uncle, Claudius (who had
not been adopted into the imperial household), was honoured as befitted
Germanicus’ brother; he became Caligula’s colleague in his first consul-
ship, held from 1 July to 31 August (so as not to impair the respect due to
the regular consuls). The memory of Livia was also honoured: Caligula
began the construction of a temple and cult, voted but never undertaken
at her death. When his grandmother Antonia died on 1 May, the prestige
of the imperial family was emphasized again by the grant of similar
honours.

The losers were those who had supported Tiberius. It is hardly

* ADLOCVT COH, OB CIVES SERVATOS. For Caligula’s coinage, cf. Sutherland
1987 (B 338) chs. 26-9; GCN 81-6. Congiaria: Fasti Ostienses=GCN 31= AN 174. Building
programme: Thornton 1989 (F 594). The 2.7 billion sesterces was perhaps the value of the
patrimonium: Suet. Calig. 37.3.

32 Ceausescu 1973 (C 337) (at a time when Rumania was seeking to play a similar role as mediator
between East and West). Cf. Sherk 42; Braund 1984 (c 254) 41-6; Sullivan 1985 (£ 1224) (Judaea).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

224 §- TIBERIUS TO NERO

surprising that Gemellus was soon required to commit suicide on the
charge of having taken an antidote, ie. implicitly accusing Caligula of
wanting to poison him. Caligula executed Tiberius’ long-term associate
Marcus Iunius Silanus (cos. A.D. 15), the father of his deceased wife Iunia
Claudilla, and presumably a supporter of Gemellus. Caligula accused
him of attempting a coup while he was away, possibly during his trip to
recover his mother’s ashes. Macro, too, soon met his end: Caligula had
no intention of making the mistake of being as dependent upon him as
Tiberius had been on Sejanus. It is interesting that while later tradition
accuses Caligula of having been too friendly with client kings, there are
no references to his being under the influence of his freedmen or even
prefects: Caligula did not shift the responsibility for his own actions onto
others.

The way in which Caligula built up support and eliminated potential
opposition shows that the new emperor had learnt a great deal from
Tiberius. These executions also suggest that attempts to divide his reign
into a ‘good’ beginning followed by unremitting atrocities, or even
lunacy, are misplaced. It is useless to date the turning-point to before the
death of Antonia (two months after his accession), an illness in the
autumn of A.D. 37 which is supposed to have affected his brain, or the
death of his sister Drusilla on 10 June 38. (According to the ancient
sources, Drusilla was so dear to him that he was accused of incest with
her, and modern historians have suggested that she was a ‘restraining
influence’ on him.) We cannot judge how genuine Caligula’s affection for
his sisters was; but it is clear that he knew from the start that their
children, and their husbands, were his rivals. We are told that when his
sister Agrippina and her husband, Cnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, hada
son on 15 December 37, Caligula insultingly suggested that he be named
after Claudius. The death of Ahenobarbus in 39 meant that Agrippina
and her child — the later Nero — were not an immediate threat.

Drusilla was married to Lucius Cassius Longinus; Caligula gave her
instead to Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, member of one of the wealthiest
surviving republican dynasties, long associated with Augustus’ family.33
His father (cos. A.D. 6) was one of those allegedly described by Augustus
as suitable for imperial office (see p. 204f. above); he was related to the
younger Iulia’s husband Aemilius Paullus, exiled in A.p. 8; and his sister
Aemilia Lepida had been the wife of Caligula’s brother Drusus. Caligula
trusted Lepidus to the extent that they were said to have been homosex-
ual lovers, and more significantly he gave his seal-ring to Lepidus during
his serious illness in A.D. 37 — the customary sign that Lepidus, as
Drusilla’s husband, was to administer the household if Caligula were to
die without issue.

33 Syme 1970 (B 178) ch. 4; 1986 (A 95); PIR.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GAIUS CALIGULA 225

When Drusilla died, Caligula had her deified (23 September 38). There
was nothing un-Roman about her cult: as a Julian, she was associated
with Venus, the ancestor of the Iulii. The title ‘Panthea’ associated her
with the Magna Mater, but that cult too (notwithstanding its hellenistic
origins) had been at home in Rome for over two centuries. And there
was nothing ‘oriental’ about the new goddess’ elephant-drawn biga (male
divi like Augustus had their image drawn by a guadriga of elephants), nor
about the requirement that Roman women should swear by Drusilla
(Claudius made the women of his household swear by the diva Livia).

The deification of Drusilla raises the question of whether Caligula had
a ‘religious policy’, wanting to be adored as a god in the style of
hellenistic monarchs. ‘Emperor-worship’ can no longer be dismissed as
an irrational oriental superstition (see ch. 16 for a discussion of the
various cults); if Caligula saw himself, or his office, as divine, then this
was an attempt to express the reality of his position as a mediator
between the Roman community and the world of the gods. It was not
fantastic to express this position as analogous to that of Hercules, the
man whose labours made him divine (and, like later emperors with a
special devotion to Hercules, Caligula liked to be seen as a gladiator,
imposing law and order upon wild beasts and criminals), nor strange to
commune with Jupiter. That monotheism made it impossible for the
Jews to accept the emperor as divine in this sense was beyond the
comprehension of Caligula, as of so many other Romans. Recent
excavations suggest that some anecdotes about Caligula’s claims to
divinity (eg. that Castor and Pollux were his ‘doorkeepers’) were based
on his building activities on and around the Palatine.

A number of the peculiar stories told about Caligula suggest that,
more clearly than other emperors, he saw that the emperor’s role
symbolized the struggle of man against nature. Although unable to
swim, he seems to have been particularly keen to impose his will upon
the sea: according to Suetonius’ grandfather, the astrologer Thrasyllus
had once told Tiberius that Caligula had no more chance of being
emperor than of riding a horse across the sea. To refute him, he built a
bridge of boats from Baiae to Puteoli and rode across. Soon after his
accession he braved the elements to sail to the island of Planasia, where
his mother and brother had died in exile, in order to demonstrate his
Piety towards them; and control over the Ocean also featured in his
military expeditions. In a successful emperor, such attempts to control
nature were divine, but — like Xerxes’ bridge over the Hellespont — they
might also be the acts of a tyrant. It is not surprising that Caligula is
reported to have suffered from nightmares in which he pitted himself
against the Mediterranean Sea.

¥* Buildings and religion: Wiseman 1987 (£ 140); Barrett 1989 (C 333) ch. 13.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

226 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

Sexual licence was another characteristic of the typical tyrant. Stories
of incest and homosexuality have to be understood as representing
Caligula’s tight political control over his family, and over others who
might threaten him. We are told that he intervened to prevent a marriage
between C. Calpurnius Piso (the man who was to lead the conspiracy of
A.D. 65) and Livia Orestilla, presumably a relative of Livia’s; he slept
with her himself, to ensure that, if there were any children, it would not
be clear that they were Piso’s. Caligula took steps to control other
Pisones, too. When Lucius Piso (consul in 27, and urban prefect under
Tiberius) was proconsul of Africa in 39/40, he felt it necessary to remove
the Third Legion from the proconsul’s command (a decision which later
emperors did not think it politic to rescind).

The threats represented by his sisters as well as by more distant
relatives would be much less immediate if Caligula had a child of his
own. In 38, he married Lollia Paulina, the granddaughter of Augustus’
general (and Tiberius’ enemy) the consul of 21 B.c. Paulina did not please
Caligula, and she was divorced after a year (but survived to rival
Agrippina for the hand of Claudius). His last wife was Milonia Caesonia,
whose mother Vistilia was famous for marrying six husbands in
succession; one of Caesonia’s stepfathers, Cnaeus Domitius Corbulo
(father of Nero’s general), was given a suffect consulship in 39. Caesonia
provided Caligula with a daughter, Iulia Drusilla; he was delighted, and
his position vis-a-vis potential successors was greatly strengthened.
Marcus Lepidus was no longer the heir-apparent, and could be dispensed
with.

In the autumn of 39, Caligula claimed to have uncovered a major
conspiracy to replace him with Lepidus; although the exact sequence of
events is impossible to reconstruct, it is clear that he acted swiftly and
decisively. He publicized the striking failure of the consuls to offer
prayers on his behalf on his birthday on 31 August. Cnaeus Cornelius
Lentulus Gaetulicus, consul in 4.p. 26 and in command of the upper
Rhine legions since 30, could be represented as constituting a military
threat. Caligula gave orders for a major military force to be concentrated
in Upper Germany, and marched north himself with the praetorians (he
pretended that the object of the expedition was to levy Batavians for his
personal bodyguard). Lentulus Gaetulicus’ own legions were overawed
by the display of imperial might, and he was executed; a considerable
number of tribunes and centurions had to be retired.

Caligula had kept Lepidus, Agrippina and Livilla by his side during
this expedition. Lepidus was now formally tried and executed; corre-
spondence was produced incriminating both sisters, and Caligula sent to
Rome three daggers with which he claimed they had intended to kill him.
Agrippina and Livilla were condemned on the standard charge of

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GAIUS CALIGULA 227

adultery, and exiled. In a parody of the return of their grandfather
Drusus’ and father Germanicus’ ashes to Rome, Caligula forced Agrip-
pina to return bearing those of her ‘lover’ Lepidus. The future emperor
Vespasian, who was praetor in that year, distinguished himself by his
attacks on Agrippina in the Senate. The records of the Arval Brethren
inform us that on 27 October 39, the promagister L. Salvius Otho
sacrificed in thanksgiving for the unmasking of the conspiracy. The
deaths of Calvisius Sabinus (the legate of Pannonia) and his wife at about
the same time may have been connected with the conspiracy, pretended
or real.35

Caligula’s visit to the Rhine legions provided him with an opportunity
to enhance his status by winning military glory. The first imperative was
to regain the loyalty of the Rhine army. Gaetulicus’ replacement was
Lepidus’ brother-in-law Servius Sulpicius Galba; his friendship with
Caligula will have dated to the period when Caligula lived in Livia’s
household. Galba restored strict standards of discipline to the legions,
and Caligula himself led a number of expeditions across the Rhine. They
were not obviously less successful in reasserting Roman prestige in the
eyes of the German tribes than his father Germanicus’ had been in a.p.
14-16. It is only because of Caligula’s own unpopularity that our ancient
sources with one accord decry them as artificial and unreal, accusing
Caligula of cowardice, and suggesting that he fabricated the fighting,
and bought or kidnapped the captives in Gaul, where he spent the
winter.

Accounts of Caligula’s activities at Lyons during the winter empha-
size his bad relations with the Senate, and his need for funds. The
property of Gallic notables was confiscated, as well as senatorial estates
in Italy (eg. those of Sextus Pompeius, cos. A.D. 14); he auctioned off the
property of his exiled sisters, and even some of the effects of the imperial
household. Such anecdotes illustrate the fiscal requirements of policies
that were themselves likely to strengthen the regime. Coins advertise the
abolition of the 4 percent sales tax on slaves, which will have been
welcome to wealthy Italians; the tax had already been reduced from 1 per
cent by Tiberius, at the time when Germanicus had overseen the
annexation of Cappodocia. To make up for the lost income, Caligula will
have looked for another client kingdom to integrate into the empire. His
choice fell on Mauretania, whose king, Caligula’s cousin Ptolemy, was
summoned to Lyons and executed (not, as has been suggested, because
Caligula coveted his alleged position as high priest of the Isis cult).%

35 Lepidus and Gaetulicus: Meise 1969 (c 375) ch. 5; Simpson 1980 (c 394); Acta Arvalium, GCN
9. For Vespasian’s role, Jones 1984 (C 360).

% Ptolemy aud Mauretania: Fishwick 1971 (E 732); Braund 1984 (c 254); Hoffman 1959 (c 275)

(Isis). Coins advertising tax reduction (‘RCC’): Sutherland 1987 (B 358) ch. 19. Victory over the
Ocean: Suet. Calig. 46; Dio t1x.25.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

228 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

But Caligula was also planning to follow in the footsteps of his
ancestor Julius Caesar by imposing Roman military control over Britain.
The expulsion from his kingdom and flight to Gaul of Cunobelinus’ son
Adminius gave Rome an excuse to intervene. Two new legions (the
Fifteenth and Twenty-second) seem to have been raised at this time; they
were called Primigeniae, probably in honour of the emperor’s first-born
daughter. Their numbers suggest that they were intended to be twinned
with two of the upper Rhine legions, the Fourteenth at Mainz and
Twenty-first at Vindonissa, an indication of Caligula’s caution regarding
the loyalty of Gaetulicus’ old army. Other preparations for the invasion
included the construction of a lighthouse at Boulogne. Again, the
ancient sources argue that Caligula was far too great a coward to have
been serious about invading Britain; and anecdotes about the operation
are selected with a view to suggesting that the whole affair was further
proof of his madness. It is impossible to judge why the army never
embarked. The story that Caligula intended to punish the legions by
decimation suggests that there may have been a mutiny (he is said to have
reminded them of the mutiny of their predecessors after Augustus’
death, in which as a baby he had been taken away to Trier by Agrippina);
alternatively, the British chieftains may have acceded to his demands
without the need for an invasion. If there is any truth behind Suetonius’
story that Caligula ordered his troops to collect seashells in the context of
military operations either on the north German coast or against Britain,
it may be that he meant these shells to be a symbol of his victory over the
Ocean. (An unlikely alternative explanation has been that the musculi he
ordered the troops to pack up were not sea-shells, but siege engines.)

Caligula returned to Italy in the summer of A.D. 40. The winter in
Lyons had not been conducive to good relations with the Senate.
Communications were a problem; when one of the consuls-elect died
shortly before 1 January, there was not enough time for Caligula to be
consulted about a replacement, and he was (very unreasonably) blamed
for entering office without a colleague — perhaps the context of the story
about his wishing to appoint the horse Incitatus to the consulship. There
had been executions, such as that of the father of Tacitus’ father-in-law
Agricola. After the removal of Lepidus, any relative represented a threat,
even his uncle Claudius. He was said to have thrown Claudius into the
river Rhine when he arrived at the head of a senatorial delegation sent to
congratulate him on the elimination of Lepidus and Gaetulicus.

Caligula remained outside Rome for a time, possibly simply to avoid
the unhealthy summer months, rather than out of fear of conspiracies
(although he is said to have remarked that he wished he could eliminate
the entire Senate at a stroke). We should beware of taking Seneca’s
hostile remarks, or the later justifications for his murder, as evidence for

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CLAUDIUS 229

widespread unpopularity. It is hardly surprising that Cassius Chaerea
and the other disgruntled praetorian officers responsible for Caligula’s
death and the brutal killing of his wife and baby daughter on 24 January
A.D. 41 should have justified their treason by claiming that it was
tyrannicide. No doubt Chaerea was genuinely unhappy about Caligula’s
persecution of other members of Germanicus’ family, but it also irked
him that the emperor kept drawing attention to Chaerea’s effeminate
tone of voice.

Iv. CLAUDIUS27

Most ancient sources treat Claudius as a fool who became emperor by
accident. Already in Seneca’s satire the Apocolocyntosis, written some
months after Claudius’ death, he is represented as vicious, stupid and
fearful. It may not have been entirely Claudius’ fault that he executed
some two hundred equestrians and thirty-five senators, including many
of his relatives, during a reign of just over thirteen years. But we should
not be too keen to rehabilitate Claudius in the face of the judgment of
antiquity. Nor should all Claudius’ acts be ascribed to a grandiose and
far-seeing overall ‘policy’, when many can be explained as particular
responses to standard political threats. Claudius’ ‘policy’ was above all
that of any other Roman princeps: staying alive, controlling the succes-
sion, rewarding clients and winning glory — even though the form it
took may have been influenced by traditions about the Claudii, and by
his respect for Julius Caesar.

The reported views of Augustus, of Claudius’ grandmother Livia and
his mother Antonia the Younger as to his unsuitability for public office
should not be ignored. A public position was not something automati-
cally inherited at Rome; it was something that each individual had to
prove himself fit for. Neither Augustus nor Tiberius felt that Claudius
was suitable for election to office, and he had remained an eques.
Although he had been granted some honours by Tiberius, on the rare
occasions when he appeared on the political scene it was only in a private
capacity — for example, to accompany his brother Germanicus’ ashes on
their return from the East — or as the representative of the equestrian ordo
at Augustus’ funeral and to congratulate Tiberius on the overthrow of
Sejanus. Tiberius had no intention of allowing Claudius to inherit the
political support of his brother Germanicus. Like other Romans
excluded from politics, Claudius turned to intellectual pursuits, and in
particular to the study of history. He wrote about Carthage and the
Etruscans (many of his associates, including his first wife Plautia

37 Main literary sources: Tac. Aan. xi—xu1, with Mehl 1974 (B 123); Dio Lx; Suet. Claud.; Sen.
Apocol. Assessments: Momigliano 1934 (c 377); Levick 1978 (c 367); Levick 1990 (c 372).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

230 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

Urgulanilla, had an Etruscan background). The effect has been to make
him particularly sympathetic to modern historians, who see a fellow-
worker in Claudius. More crucially, the mask of pedantry enabled him to
survive Tiberius’ reign.

At his accession, Caligula brought his uncle fully into public life as
part of his attempt to strengthen his position by enhancing the respect
due to his relatives. From 1 July to 12 September a.p. 37 Claudius was
Caligula’s colleague during his first consulship. In 39 he married his third
wife, Valeria Messallina; her father was Claudius’ cousin Marcus
Valerius Messalla Barbatus, son of the consul of 12 8.c. and of Augustus’
niece Marcella the Younger, and her mother was Domitia Lepida.
Although Octavia and Britannicus were not born until 4o/1, the
possibility that his uncle might produce children who, unlike Antonia
(Claudius’ daughter by Urgulanilla), had Augustus’ blood in their veins,
cannot have pleased Caligula.

When Caligula was unexpectedly assassinated, there was no precedent
for the form which the transfer of power toa new princeps should take. Of
course, death might come suddenly to political leaders then as now, and
it should not surprise us that potential claimants had contingency plans
ready. The speed with which some of them acted does not prove that
they were involved in Chaerea’s plot. Once it was clear that Caligula’s
baby daughter had been killed with him, the obvious person to claim to
inherit the domus Caesaris was Marcus Vinicius, husband of the exiled
lulia Livilla (Caligula’s other sister, Agrippina, was a widow). Where
Vinicius erred was in turning to the Senate to confirm his position.*8

The Senate was immediately summoned by the consul Quintus
Pomponius Secundus: this need not indicate that he was privy to the
plot. As a half-brother of Caesonia, he too had an interest in the
succession. Later, after the Senate had failed to institute a Caesar of its
own, it became politic for everyone, including the new emperor, to
pretend that they had merely been acting in the public interest. The
Senate debated the situation in the language of republicanism, and that
language masked the ambitions of those involved. On the evening of the
assassination, the hundred or so senators who had the courage to appear
were in no mood to confirm Vinicius’ claims. Instead, they celebrated the
removal of a tyrant, and the consuls — for the first time since the
establishment of the Principate — gave the urban cohorts their watch-
word for the following day. But the celebration of /tbertas did not exclude
the search for a new.princeps, the urban cohorts made it clear that that was
what they wanted.

While the Senate debated, Claudius had taken control of the house-

38 Accounts of the succession crisis: Joseph. AJ x1x.248-73= AN 194; Timpe 1962 (c 403);
Swan 1970 (c 395); Jung 1972.(c 361); Ritter 1972 (B 151).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CLAUDIUS 231

hold of the Caesars. Tradition had it that after Caligula’s death he was
found hiding in the palace by a guardsman who acclaimed him as
emperor, and taken to the praetorian camp where he was recognized as
the legitimate head of the Caesars. In strict law, that may not have been
so; but Roman law also recognized the principle of possessio. The
Praetor’s Edict protected the rights of the person who was in actual
control of an estate until such time as the appropriate court (in the case of
inheritances, the centumviral court) had passed judgment on the
question of ownership in accordance with strict i#s Outritium. ‘Whether
(possessio) existed or not was regarded as a question of fact, but if it
existed, it conferred rights’.°° It was certainly a fact that Claudius now
had possessio.

Claudius was not a member of the Julian household; but his uncle
Tiberius and his brother Germanicus had been adopted into it, and they
and his nephew Caligula had headed, or been expected to head, that
household. After his acclamation as their new smperator by the praetorian
guard, Claudius immediately adopted the name Caesar, to show that he
had inherited that household; the name did not imply any fictitious
posthumous adoption, nor was it pre-empting the bestowal of a title (like
that of ‘Augustus’) by the Senate. Nor was Claudius arrogating any
constitutional powers to himself by calling himself Caesar. It represented
the fact that Claudius was now Caligula’s successor as head of the domus
Caesaris. In the aftermath of the assassination no will was sought out that
would have to be adhered to, like that of Augustus, or set aside, like that
of Tiberius.

When the Senate reconvened on the following day, it was too late to
recognize the claims of Marcus Vinicius or any other candidate. The
consul Pomponius allowed other names to be considered, including
those of Annius Vinicianus (who supported his uncle Vinicius) and
Decimus Valerius Asiaticus, who had been an early adviser of Caligula
and was married to a sister of Lollia Paulina. There were a number of
other consulars who were related to the Julian family through descent or
by marriage; they too might want a say in who was to head the domus
Caesaris, but most of them happened to be away from Rome as provincial
governors in January 41, and January was not a good time for
communicating with Spain or the Rhine or Danube, nor for travel
thence to Rome. Servius Sulpicius Galba, who had given Caligula such
excellent support in the aftermath of Gaetulicus’ rebellion and was now
legate of the upper Rhine army, Aulus Plautius in Pannonia, Camillus
Scribonianus in Dalmatia, and Appius Iuntus Silanus in Tarraconensis,

3% Possessio. Buckland 1963 (F 646) 203. Legal recognition of usucapio of an estate was only granted
after one year; but possessio itself was a matter of immediate fact. On the adoption of the deceased’s
name by an heir, Syme 1984 (D 72).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

232 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

could not be consulted and could not intervene to affect the recognition
of a new Caesar at Rome — even if their names may later have been
mentioned as alternative candidates. In the end, the Senate summoned
Claudius to discuss the situation. He politely pretended that the
praetorians were keeping him against his will; but the consuls and other
senators had to accept that the support of the praetorians for Claudius
left chem with no choice but to confirm his position.

Claudius’ debt to the guard is reflected in his early coins. A gold aureus
shows one of the first representations of a walled Roman camp with
battlements, arched gateways, and a pair of columns supporting a
pediment. A praetorian stands guard, and the inscription proclaims “The
Commander Received’ [sc. into the guard’s loyalty]. The other side of
the special relationship between the new imperator and his soldiers is
depicted by a bronze as with Claudius, in the civilian’s toga, clasping
hands with a soldier, and the inscription “The Praetorians Received’.
These issues were of course intended for the eyes of the guard, and were
very probably the coins used to pay the unprecedented donative of
15,000 sesterces which Claudius had promised them at his elevation; we
are told that he continued to give each soldier a payment of 100 sesterces
annually throughout his reign.

Other coins celebrate decidedly non-military aspects of the image the
new ruler wished to present of himself: there are representations of
‘Augustan Liberty’ holding a liberty-cap, and dedications ‘To Augustan
Peace’ and ‘Augustan Constancy’. A copper guadrans, listing the emper-
or’s new honours (including his designation to a second consulship, i.e.
the consulship of 42), may refer to a decision to return to the traditional
metal-content of the coinage, debased by Caligula. Some of Caligula’s
coins were ceremonially defaced. Like some of the coin-issues by means
of which Caligula at his accession had distanced himself from Tiberius,
Claudius wanted to emphasize a return to legality, and to the precedents
set by Augustus. A sestertius depicts the oak wreath awarded ‘For
Citizens Saved’. Claudius was also anxious to stress the links between his
Claudian relations and the Julian family. Early coins show his father,
Drusus; his mother Antonia (given the title Augusta); and his brother
Germanicus, formally ‘son of Tiberius Augustus and grandson of the
Divine Augustus’. Livia, too, was honoured; and the dedication of an
altar to ‘Augustan Piety’ in ¢. A.D. 43 symbolized the new emperor’s
claim to be close to Augustus.

One way to show that he intended his reign to be an improvement on
Caligula’s was by recalling those who had been exiled (as Caligula
himself had done at his accession). Those who returned included
Agrippina and Iulia Livilla. The public honour Claudius bestowed upon

Coins: AN 187-8, 194; GCN 81-6; Sutherland 1987 (B 358) chs. 30, 32.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CLAUDIUS 233

his relatives did not mean that he could trust them. His fear of
assassination was extreme (up to the last years of his reign, everyone who
entered his presence was searched for weapons). Historians have
expressed doubt about the extent to which Claudius’ third wife Messal-
lina was responsible for the executions of these early years of his reign.
But many of those who threatened her threatened him too, and Claudius
publicly thanked her for warning him against at least some of those he
had put to death. Soon after her return, Iulia Livilla was exiled again and
then executed. Agrippina fared better; her son Domitius Ahenobarbus
returned to her care, and his property, confiscated by Caligula, was
restored to him. Agrippina looked for the support of a new husband; her
first choice was Livia’s protégé, Galba, but Galba’s mother-in-law
pointed out to him that that would make his claim to the imperial office
so strong that he could not expect to survive for long. (She also made a
point of slapping Agrippina’s face in public.) Instead, Agrippina married
C. Sallustius Passienus Crispus, the adopted son of Augustus’ closest
associates (see above pp. 202). As a new member of the imperial family,
and potential father of Caesarian children, Crispus had to be honoured
with a second consulship in A.D. 44; but he died soon after — poisoned by
Agrippina, according to Suetonius — so that Messallina allowed Agrip-
pina to survive.*

Claudius and Messallina also looked for support through matrimonial
alliances. In 42 Appius Iunius Silanus was recalled from the governor-
ship of Tarraconensis to marry Messallina’s mother Domitia Lepida,
daughter of Augustus’ niece the elder Antonia. Claudius’ daughter by
Aelia Paetina, Antonia, was married to Pompeius Magnus, son of
Marcus Licinius Crassus Frugi (cos. A.D. 27); through his mother
Scribonia, he was related to Augustus. Claudius’ two-year-old daughter
by Messallina, Octavia, was engaged to Augustus’ great-great-grandson
Lucius Iunius Torquatus Silanus (the youngest son of the consul of a.p.
19, proconsul of Africa under Caligula: not closely related to Appius
Silanus), aged about sixteen. Silanus was identified as a suitable succes-
sor, sufficiently young to pose no immediate threat: he was made a
vigintivir and praefectus urbi feriarum Latinarum causa. But the preference
shown to Silanus naturally weakened the chances of others interested in -
the imperial office.

By and large Claudius was initially unsuccessful, or unlucky, in his
attempts to build up a wide enough network of dependants to whom he
had distributed beneficia. Supporters appointed to client kingships
included Mithridates in Lesser Armenia, and Agrippa in Judaea (the
latter’s role in the events following Caligula’s assassination is empha-

“| Opposition: McAlindon 1956 (c 373), 1957 (C 374); Baldwin 1964 (c 330); Meise 1969 (c 375);
Wiseman 1982 (B 198). Agrippina and Galba: Suet. Galba. 5.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

234 §. TIBERIUS TO NERO

sized by Josephus in his Antiquities); although Agrippa died in 44 after
just three years, he was able to persuade Claudius to grant considerable
beneficia to Jewish communities at Alexandria and elsewhere in the
empire. As a reward for not challenging Claudius’ possessio of the domus
Caesaris, Marcus Vinicius was to be consul ordinarius for the second time in
45, and Valerius Asiaticus given a second consulship in 46.

Just under a year after his accession, on 12 January 42, it was felt that
Claudius had distributed honours and offices to enough members of the
political class to warrant accepting the title of pater patriae. (He also held
a consulship, his second, for two months at the beginning of this year.)
This merely masked his weakness. After Caligula’s assassination, those
powerful governors who happened not to be in Rome accepted
Claudius’ elevation as a fait accompli. But Claudius’ political inexperience
and lack of military virtus gave those who considered themselves more
suitably qualified a temptation to act. Galba and Aulus Plautius remained
loyal; Appius Silanus and Camillus Scribonianus did not. Appius Silanus
may have judged that if Claudius were out of the way, he, as the husband
of Octavia’s grandmother Domitia Lepida, would be in a doubly strong
position to gain recognition as Caesar. The weak point in his calculation
was that there was no love lost between Messallina and her mother.
Backed by the /ibertus Narcissus, Messallina informed Claudius of
Silanus’ ambitions, and Claudius tried and convicted Silanus, not in
public but in his domestic court, the consilium of his amici.

The execution of Silanus was a sign of Claudius’ insecurity as well as of
his readiness to eliminate rivals. The legate of Dalmatia, Lucius
Arruntius Furius Camillus Scribonianus (adopted son of Lucius Arrun-
tius, one of those who, according to Tacitus, had been thought worthy
of the Principate by Augustus), calculated that his chances of survival
would be better if he made a bid for empire himself. Scribonianus
commanded two legions, the Seventh and Eleventh, and his attempt was
supported by a number of figures in Rome who had failed to respond
positively to Claudius’ acclamation in the previous year. They included
Lucius Annius Vinicianus and the consul who had summoned the
Senate, Quintus Pomponius Secundus. Our sources tell us that Claudius
seriously discussed the advisability of surrendering his imperium to
Scribonianus. Unfortunately for Scribonianus, he felt himself unable at
this stage to declare himself emperor — either because he waited for
confirmation from his supporters in the Senate, or because he was
hoping for support from other provincial commanders such as Galba
and Aulus Plautius. These commanders had no interest in forsaking
Claudius for another emperor; and after a few days, the two Dalmatian
legions abandoned Scribonianus. It was claimed that the legionary
standards had become stuck in the ground as a sign of divine anger at

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CLAUDIUS 235

their disloyalty. Scribonianus killed himself, and those of his supporters
at Rome who did not were executed.

Claudius’ third consulship in a.p. 43 was again a sign of weakness
rather than strength. During these first years of his reign, he had to make
every effort to ensure that he was popular with the Roman plebs — apart
from staging games and spectacles, he initiated some major building
operations, some of them directly raising the living standards of the
Roman population. They included the draining of the Fucine lake, to
provide much-needed agricultural land in the vicinity of the capital, a
new aqueduct, and the construction of a safe harbour at Ostia. A riot
early in his reign made it clear to Claudius that, since the time of Iulius
Caesar, the supervision of the corn supply was one of the ruler’s principal
functions. Another was the supervision of the judicial system; particu-
larly during his tenure of consular office. Claudius made himself visibly
available in the law-courts. Even hostile sources (who dwell on his
tendency to ignore the law in favour of so-called ‘equity’) had to admit
that he was serious in his desire to be seen to be a hard-working judge.

In terms of the qualities required of a Roman imperator, Claudius’
major weakness, like that of Caligula when he had come to power, was
that he had no military experience. This explains his almost obsessive
need to advertise any military success achieved during his reign;
Claudius chose to accept twenty-seven imperatorial acclamations, more
than any other emperor. Even in his first year, coins showed off a
triumphal arch with trophies won by his father Drusus ‘from the
Germans’. Soon there were genuine military successes. In Mauretania,
Suetonius Paulinus dealt successfully with a war against nomad tribes
that had arisen out of Caligula’s removal of King Ptolemy and impo-
sition of direct Roman rule (see chapter 13/ on Africa). Paulinus’
successors completed the process of pacification; it gave Claudius the
opportunity to honour Marcus Crassus Frugi, both a central figure of the
old aristocracy and the father-in-law of Antonia. Crassus was now
awarded triumphal ornamenta for finishing off the war effectively won by
the novus homo Suetonius Paulinus.

Claudius reserved for himself the glory of conquering Britain. Ever
since the time of Iulius Caesar, Britain, as an island in the Ocean, had had
a symbolic importance for Romans: its conquest would indicate that not
just the whole world, but even lands beyond the edge of the world, were
subject to the dominion of the Roman people. The occupation of Britain
would have the additional benefit of removing several legions from
within striking distance of Rome: Caligula’s new legions had raised the
number in each of the German armies to five, and that made their
commanders too powerful.

Claudius felt that he could trust the Pannonian governor, Aulus

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

236 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

Plautius, to undertake the actual military operation. Son of an officer of
Claudius’ father Drusus and brother Germanicus, Plautius had remained
loyal during Scribonianus’ rebellion, and he was a cousin of Claudius’
first wife (although he had divorced Urgulanilla, Claudius is said to have
remained on good terms with her). The other person Claudius trusted
was Lucius Vitellius, the consul of 34, son of a mere eques but with two
consular brothers. Loyal supporters of Germanicus, Vitellius and his
brothers had returned to prominence during Tiberius’ last years because
of the support of Caligula’s grandmother: (and Claudius’ mother)
Antonia. Vitellius held a second consulship in 43, and Claudius entrusted
the capital to his care for the duration of the expedition.

There were few others he trusted not to plot in his absence: a large
number of senators had to accompany him. It was even said that
Claudius put off the voyage to Britain by a few days because Galba
claimed that he was too ill to travel. Galba was one consular Claudius
could not afford to leave behind. Among others in the party were both
Valerius Asiaticus and Marcus Vinicius. The Britons themselves pre-
sented considerably fewer problems (see chapter 13e), and the resultant
triumph enabled Claudius to distribute the ornamenta triumphalia to all
those consulars he brought with him, thus putting them under a stronger
obligation to be loyal. For much of the rest of the reign, Claudius
ensured that no one would forget the symbolic success of carrying the
frontiers of the empire beyond the Ocean; coins advertised trophies won
‘from the Britons’. An inscription dating to ¢. A.D. 51/2 and probably
originating from his triumphal arch alludes to ‘the surrender of eleven
British kings without loss’, and asserts that ‘he was the first to subject to
the rule of the Roman people barbarian tribes beyond the Ocean’.
During his fourth consulship in a.D. 49, Claudius extended the pomerium
of the city to demonstrate his success in extending the empire.*2

But the integration of Mauretania, south-east Britain, and also Lycia-
Pamphylia during these years did not imply a ‘policy’ of general
expansion, in contrast to that initiated by Tiberius. Military adventures
can be seen as a function of a weak emperor’s need to buttress his g/oria.
There could be no question of allowing other commanders such military
gloria. The imperial legate in Lower Germany, Cn. Domitius Corbulo
(half-brother of Caligula’s wife Caesonia), took action to suppress raids
into Gaul by a Chaucian chieftain, Gannascus, in 47; Claudius had to
restrain him from proceeding with operations along the Frisian coast.#

While the administrative measures of these years can be seen primarily

# Britain: Barrett 1980 (c 332); Murison 1985 (C 379); Boatwright 1986 (c 33) (pomeriun). Arch:
GCN 43. The representation of ‘Bretannia’ at Aphrodisias: JRS 1987, plate xiv; Levick 1990 (c 372)
plate 20. 43, Corbulo: Syme 1970 (C 397).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CLAUDIUS 237

as responses to Claudius’ political weakness, the form they took suggests
that Claudius was keen to represent himself as following in the footsteps
of the Claudii of old, and — like Caligula — of Iulius Caesar. This lay
behind the policy of extending Roman citizenship to the provinces, and
looking after the interests of the army. Serving soldiers were granted the
legal privilegia maritorum. Claudius was also anxious to retain the support
of the Roman plebs. When he released some of the quaestors from their
archaic obligations as prefects of Ostia and ‘Gaul’ (possibly Senonian
Gaul, the region south of Rimini), it was not so much as part of a ‘policy
of centralization’, but rather — so Suetonius tells us — so that young men
interested in a political career could pay more attention to providing the
plebs with games. As far as the propertied classes were concerned, an
emperor’s chief function was to ensure that the law courts functioned
swiftly and effectively. Service as ‘jurors’ (‘lay judges’ might be a better
translation) was irksome, but essential for the peaceful ordering of
citizen society; Claudius reduced the age at which equestrians were
required to present themselves for such service from twenty-five to
twenty-four. More courts required more presidents, and one of the
reasons for the transfer in a.D.44 of responsibility for the aerarium Saturni
from two of the praetors to a pair of titular quaestors, selected by the
emperor himself for a term of three years, will have been to make these
praetors available for court service. Certainly there is nothing sinister in
the fact that the two new quaestors were the emperor’s personal
appointees: by this stage no magistrate was elected to office without the
implicit support of the princeps, and an emperor who did not personally
select the men who were to look after the state treasury would have been
curiously negligent of his responsibilities. We need not ascribe any
conscious policy of centralization to Claudius; centralization was impli-
cit in the patronage system of the Principate.

The important role that ex-slaves were said to have played in Claudius’
household is more interesting, and should not be dismissed entirely as
hostile propaganda. Claudius had had little experience of politics, even
during the reign of Caligula. He depended for advice on amici of his
family like Aulus Plautius and Lucius Vitellius, and on freedmen such as
Narcissus, the ab epistulis (secretary for correspondence), Pallas, the a
rationibus (keeper of accounts), Callistus, the a /ibellis (petitions), and
Polybius, the a studiis (perhaps a speech-writer). But it does not follow
that Claudius was systematically creating departments of state, or using
his own dependants instead of freeborn citizens as part of a conscious
‘policy’ of rationalizing or controlling everything that was going on.
During the Julio-Claudian period, men of wealth and standing were not
yet as prepared as they later were to serve the emperor in a subordinate

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

238 §. TIBERIUS TO NERO

capacity. Freedmen were not only obedient, but also expendable; it
might be politic for a weak emperor to blame unpopular measures on his
ex-slaves — or his wives. (For the imperial court, see chapter 7.)

One area in which Claudius was keen to demonstrate the ‘democratic’
tradition he had inherited both from the Claudii and from Iulius Caesar
was the distribution of corn to the urban population. Responsibility was
transferred from the aerarium to the fiscus; legal privileges were granted
to importers of grain; there were changes in the system of distribution —
to bring an end to the crush which had taken place once a month, eligible
citizens were given tickets telling them on which day of the month to
collect their allocation. The fact that it was the emperor, not the Roman
state, who ensured that people did not starve, was symbolized by the fact
that distributions were now undertaken by an imperial procurator (the de
Minucia), though there is no positive evidence that the senatorial praefecti
frumenti dandi were formally abolished; the post had in any case largely
been a sinecure. The personal role of the emperor and his family in
looking after their dependent people by ensuring the proper functioning
of the corn supply is shown by its use to publicize the succession. In 45,
Octavia’s betrothed, Lucius Silanus, represented Claudius at the distri-
bution of largesse.

Coins and inscriptions confirm the emperor’s personal interest in
providing his people with ‘Augustan grain’ and fresh water. Apart from
constructing the Aqua Claudia, Claudius instituted a second gang of
slaves to look after Rome’s aqueducts. He took equally seriously his
patronal responsibilities to protect the people from fire and flood
damage. An inscription shows that the canal he had dug in the lower
reaches of the Tiber as part of the works associated with the construction
of new harbour facilities at Ostia was not only intended to assist
navigation, but also advertised as having the result that ‘he freed the city
from the danger of flooding’.

Claudius was consul yet again in 47. Together with Vitellius, he also
held the first formal census for over thirty years. This again was a way of
honouring his supporters, and seeking the support of potential oppo-
nents. A large number of new senators owed their position to Claudius;
and many families which had played a political role for two or three
generations were raised to patrician status. Of course, we should not
exclude completely a genuine feeling for past tradition as one of
Claudius’ motives in wanting to hold the ancient office of censor, and
ensuring that there were patricians to carry on archaic religious rituals.

“ Corn: Momigliano 1934 (c 377); Meiggs 1973 (£ 84); Chandler 1978 (c 338); Rickman 1980 (E
109). CERES AUGUSTA: GCN 312(a)= AN 815. Frontin. Ag. 106; ‘urbem inundationis periculo
liberavit’, ILS 207 = GCN 312(b)=-AN 815. On Pallas, Oost 1958 (c 383); Sutherland 1987 (B 358)
ch. 34.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CLAUDIUS 239

That Claudius had genuine antiquarian interests is clear from the speech
in which he defended his decision to allow Gallic aristocrats who were
Roman citizens to stand for political office and join the Senate. The
speech is summarized by Tacitus, and fragments survive from a copy set
up at Lyons.*5 When the census was completed in 48, the consul Lucius
Vipstanus Poplicola duly suggested that Claudius should be granted the
title pater senatus, that was rejected — it would have defined the
relationship of dependence of all senators on the emperor too clearly for
comfort.

In the same year, he arranged a series of magnificent spectacles
associated with the ceremony of the /wdi saeculares, the date of which he
had himself re-calculated so as to coincide with the eighth centenary of
the foundation of Rome. They included a performance of the “Troy
game’; it was noted that when Britannicus, aged six, and Claudius’
grand-nephew, Agrippina’s son the nine-year-old Domitius Ahenobar-
bus, led the two groups, it was Domitius, as a descendant of Germanicus,
who won most applause. But notwithstanding his descent, Domitius
was still too young to be considered by Claudius a potential transitional
ruler to fill the gap until Britannicus was old enough to succeed. One
suitable candidate for this caretaker role was Antonia’s husband Cnaeus
Pompeius Magnus. The likeliest immediate successor to Claudius was
still Lucius Silanus, who had been elected praetor peregrinus in this year
(ten years or so before the normal age). The prominence of the Silani in
these years can also be deduced from the fact that Lucius’ brother Marcus
Iunius Silanus had been consul ordinarius for the entire twelve months of
the year 46.

The year 48 also saw the last major threat to Claudius’ rule, an attempt
by his wife Messallina to replace him. Responsibility for the removal of a
number of potential rivals both inside and outside the imperial house-
hold is ascribed to her by our sources: they include Germanicus’
daughter Iulia Livilla and C. Appius Iunius Silanus in 42; Tiberius’
granddaughter Iulia (wife or widow of Rubellius Blandus) in 43;
powerful senators such as Catonius Iustus in 43; Marcus Vinicius in 46,
and Valerius Asiaticus in 47. Also in 47, the husband of Claudius’
daughter Antonia, Cnaeus Pompeius Magnus, was executed, together
with the parents through whom he derived descent from Pompey and
Crassus. Antonia was re-assigned to Faustus Sulla, a son of Domitia
Lepida: as Messallina’s half-brother, he was no threat to her. In at least
some of these cases, the blame may be assigned to Messallina. She had a
claim to Julian blood in her own right, and was building up a power base
for herself and her two children. But her plans threatened not just
Claudius’ daughter Antonia, but also many of the servants of the domus

45 ILS 212=GCN 369 = AN $70; cf. Griffin 1982 (B 257).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

240 §. TIBERIUS TO NERO

Caesaris. The freedmen Narcissus and Mnester organized the opposition
to her; she was accused of planning — or perhaps actually carrying out—a
divorce, followed by a remarriage to the patrician Gaius Silius, who
would presumably rule Rome as her consort until Britannicus was old
enough to take over. Claudius was convinced of the truth of these
allegations, and Narcissus had Messallina executed.‘

Although Messallina’s plot was suppressed, it again underlined the
weakness of Claudius’ rule. Despite his promise to the praetorians never
to have anything to do with women, another matrimonial alliance was
essential to put an end to speculation about the succession. There were
several possible candidates. Lollia Paulina, who had been married to
Caligula, was supported by Callistus, who had served that emperor.
Antonia’s mother Aelia Paetina had been married to Claudius before,
and was descended from an ancient republican family. Agrippina was the
most direct descendant of Augustus. Her candidature was strongly
opposed by the freedman Narcissus, who saw that it would be the end of
Britannicus’ chances of succeeding. Agrippina was selected, thanks to
the support of Antonius Pallas, who had been the trusted procurator of
Claudius’ and Germanicus’ mother Antonia. Vitellius was given the task
of asking the Senate to set aside the legal objections to a marriage
between uncle and niece, and the wedding was celebrated on 1 January
49.
The rise of Agrippina implied the fall of the man who had been nearest
to being Claudius’ successor during Britannicus’ minority, Lucius
Iunius Silanus. For several years, he had been engaged to Claudius’
daughter Octavia, now aged ten. Again it was the loyal Vitellius who
arranged what was necessary: he accused Silanus of incest with his sister
Iunia Calvina, the wife of his own son Lucius. Four days before
Claudius’ wedding, Silanus was forced to give up the praetorship to
which he had been appointed and was expelled from the Senate. His only
option was to kill himself. The new dynastic relationships were demon-
strated publicly during Claudius’ fifth and last consulship in A.D. 50: on
25 February he adopted Agrippina’s son Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus
as Nero Claudius Caesar. Agrippina herself was given the title of
Augusta, and her birthplace Cologne honoured with the title Claudia
Ara Agrippinensis. After Nero came of age in A.D. 51, the Arval Brethren
prayed for him in the same terms as for Claudius himself; he was
appointed princeps inventutis; and Cassius Dio mentions an edict in which
Claudius entrusted the cura of the empire to Nero. For the next ten years,
those men against whom Agrippina bore a grudge — such as Galba and
Vespasian — disappeared from public life.

Claudius’ marriage to Agrippina greatly strengthened his position,
and the last years of his reign were marred by far fewer executions and

“© Messallina: Meise 1969 (c 375) ch. 6; Ehrhardt 1978 (C 343).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

NERO 241

plots than the first. The need to win military prestige was no longer so
great, though much was made of the capture of the British king
Caratacus, who was displayed at Rome. In the East, on the other hand,
there were difficulties which continued at great financial expense into the
next reign; the Parthian king Vologases I succeeded in imposing his
brother Tiridates as king of Armenia. There continued to be food riots in
the capital, but these were not now 4 serious threat.

The situation was stable because for the time being the succession was
as clear as the imperial system could ever make it. Agrippina managed to
have her own nominee Sextus Afranius Burrus appointed to command
the praetorian cohorts; Burrus came from Narbonensis, where the
Domitii Ahenobarbi had exercised patronage for generations. But
Britannicus too had his supporters, including his grandmother, Domitia
Lepida (also Nero’s paternal aunt), and the ab epistulis Narcissus. Nero’s
position was strengthened by his marriage in 53 to Claudius’ daughter
Octavia (who formally had to be adopted into another domus to marry her
father’s adoptive son), and his appearance before the Senate on a number
of occasions. Agrippina succeeded in having Domitia Lepida con-
demned for failing to keep the herdsmen on her great ranching estates in
the south of Italy under proper control.

But Britannicus would be fourteen on 12 February 55, and old enough
to be introduced to public life; there were rumours that Claudius said
that he wished to be succeeded by a ‘real’ Caesar. That would have been
fitting for one who had emulated Julius Caesar in being the patron of the
people and of the army, effecting the spread of citizenship in the
provinces, and making Britain part of the empire. Suetonius reports him
as telling Britannicus to ‘grow up quickly, so that he [Claudius] could
explain all his actions’.47 On 13 October 54, Claudius suddenly died after
eating mushrooms. The suspicion that Agrippina poisoned her husband
is shared by all ancient sources (only Josephus calls it a ‘rumour’). His
death was most opportune for Agrippina and her son, and the fact that
Narcissus happened to be away from the court for a short time seems too
convenient to have been fortuitous.

Vv. NERO’8

At the moment of Claudius’ death, there was no question of any other
candidate for the imperial office but Nero; he was his predecessor’s
adopted son and the husband of his predecessor’s daughter (herself
descended from Augustus’ sister); he had been designated to hold a

47 ‘Crescent, rationemque a se omnium factorum acciperet’: Suet. Claud. 43.

48 Main sources: Tac. Aan. xi—-xvi; Suet. Nero.; Dio -xi-Lxi. Biographers are attracted to
Nero: cf. Wankenne 1984 (c 408). Assessments: Warmington 1969 (c 409); Griffin 1984 (c 352);
Cizek 1972 (c 340) and 1982 (C 341); V. Rudich, Political Dissidence under Nero (London, 1993).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

242 §. TIBERIUS TO NERO

consulship when he reached the age of twenty (for A.D. 58), and he had
been granted proconsular powers in Italy extra urbem. In A.D. 52 he had
been appointed to the symbolic magistracy of praefectus urbi feriarum
Latinarum causa. Had Claudius died even a few months later, he might
have made a public wish to leave the empire to his natural-born son
Britannicus; but the removal of Britannicus’ grandmother Domitia
Lepida, and the temporary absence of Narcissus, left Agrippina supreme
in the palace, and the transfer of power was as straightforward as it had
been in A.D. 14 or 37. The news of Claudius’ death was kept secret for
several hours, and then Burrus accompanied Nero to the camp of the
praetorian guard where he was enthusiastically acclaimed. The promise
of a donative of 15,000 sesterces to each soldier will have helped.
Although Tacitus pretends that some soldiers asked where Britannicus
was, Britannicus could not have shared the imperial office. He was still a
child, as Tiberius Gemellus had been at Caligula’s accession.

Nero went on to a meeting of the Senate, where he was recognized
with the full imperial powers; he turned down, for the time being, the
title pater patriae, since it seemed inappropriate to a youth of sixteen. It
was not considered necessary, or sensible, for Claudius’ will to be read
and either approved, or set aside (Tacitus perversely suggests that had
the will been read, Britannicus’ plight might have received some
sympathy precisely because he was not named as Claudius’ successor).

Nero’s speech at Claudius’ funeral, as well as his speech to the Senate
accepting the imperial powers and outlining his approach to the office
that had been bestowed upon him, were both composed for him by his
rhetoric teacher Seneca. Like Caligula and Claudius at their accessions,
Nero promised a new start, and a return to the principles of Augustus.
There would be no more secret trials within the emperor’s cabiculum, and
the Senate would be respected. That respect was made manifest by the
appearance of the letters ‘EX S. C.’ on aarei and denarii between A.D. 54
and 64, to show that the use of gold and silver from the aerarium had been
authorized by the Senate.

Seneca’s treatise De Clementia, composed in A.D. 55, gives us some idea
of how this adviser of Nero’s thought that a Roman emperor should
exercise power. That Seneca makes much of both the absoluteness, and
the arbitrariness, of imperial power, does not indicate a belief that
Roman republican ideals should give way to those of hellenistic (let
alone so-called ‘oriental’) kingship. Rather, it simply makes explicit the
fact that since the Battle of Actium there was only one man in the Roman
world who was ultimately responsible for any decision affecting public
life, and many decisions affecting the private lives both of members of
his own household and of others who wished to participate in the

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

NERO 243

political process. Seneca pointed out to Nero that while the gods’ gift to
him of uncontrolled power and unrivalled wealth was glorious indeed,
it also implied the responsibility to behave in accordance with virtus;
and clemency — essentially, restraint in the justified application of the
emperor’s power to punish those who had offended him — was a major
imperial virtue.*9

The success of Seneca and Burrus in persuading contemporaries that
they were guiding the young emperor along the path of virtue has had a
considerable effect on the historical tradition. Our sources agree that
Nero’s reign began well, and that it was only in the last few years that
Nero alienated the elite to the extent of provoking conspiracy and
ultimately open rebellion. The propaganda levelled against him by the
rebels in A.D. 68 made much of his personality and cultural interests, in
particular his philhellenism and his un-Roman desire to appear publicly
as a performer. Opponents in the 6os had to explain why these character-
traits had not provoked hostility from the start; and since antiquity did
not allow much scope for the concept of character development, it was
argued that Nero directed his self-indulgence towards other ends during
the years when Seneca and Burrus were in a position to advise him.
Burrus died and Seneca retired in 62; while they are characterized in a
generally favourable way in the historical tradition, Burrus’ successor as
prefect of the praetorian guard, Ofonius Tigellinus, is presented as a
wicked contrast to Burrus, and even (unconvincingly) as Seneca’s
enemy. Partly at least this was so that Nero’s last years could be painted
even blacker.

One consequence appears to be the development of a myth of the
quinquennium Neronis, the idea that there was a period of five years during
Nero’s reign when the empire was well governed, and the relationship
between Senate and princeps was as harmonious as it could ever be.
Historians in Late Antiquity who found references to such a quinguennium
in their sources were puzzled (since Nero ended up as a typical tyrant
figure). They assumed that since Nero could not have exhibited such
‘virtue’ in his relations with the Senate (or with his own family), such
praise must either refer to his public building programme, or to the
traditional field in which a Roman displays his virtus, military conquests.
Nero’s building programmes were in fact remarkable. Although the
reconstruction of Rome after the great fire of 64 resulted in considerable
opposition, both because of its cost and because of the amount of land in
the city which Nero reserved for his reconstructed palace (including the
Golden House), even hostile writers had to accept that some of Nero’s

49 Seneca and Agrippina: Griffin 1976 (B 71). Coins: GCN 107= AN 240; Sutherland 1987 (B
358) chs. 33-6. Seneca and Nero: Leach 1989 (B 106).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

244 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

buildings were in accordance with the best Roman traditions of public
benefaction: ‘What was worse than Nero? What is better than Nero’s
Baths?”50

The idea of Nero’s guinquennium is unlikely to have been invented in
order to explain the excellence of Nero’s buildings, or the real (but
marginal) military successes associated with Corbulo and other com-
manders. It was perhaps rather an attempt to explain why so many
senators who later reviled Nero as a monster were prepared to support
him for so many years. ‘Five years’ from 54 take us up to A.D. 59, the year
in which Nero killed his mother, and one senator who paraded his belief
in /ibertas, Thrasea Paetus, walked out of the Senate; Paetus was later
hailed as a Stoic martyr. Whether or not such Stoic propaganda was the
source of the concept of a quinquennium Neronis, the idea itself shows there
was unease about the fact that Nero had been a popular emperor until the
last years of his reign.

It would be naive to believe that Nero’s rule was perfect so long as he
was under the control of Seneca and Burrus ~— and not only because
Cassius Dio tells us how rich Seneca managed to become during his years
as imperial adviser, to the extent that he was at least partly to blame for
the exasperation of the Britons which led to Boudica’s rebellion in A.p.
60. Political conflict did not cease because the emperor was being advised
by a Stoic. Nero may have been the obvious candidate to succeed
Claudius; but should he make any false move, there were a number of
men who had survived Claudius’ reign who might provide a focus of
opposition — Domitia Lepida’s grandson Britannicus, of course, but also
her son (by a different marriage from that which produced Messallina),
Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felix, the husband of Claudius’ daughter
Antonia. And further candidates of Julian ancestry were available in the
person of Rubellius Plautus (Tiberius’ great-grandson), and the surviv-
ing brothers and sisters of Lucius Iunius Silanus, who were grandchil-
dren of Augustus’ granddaughter Iulia. Nero’s position needed streng-
thening by fair means, and foul. Fair means included claims to military
prestige; in A.D. 55, the administration made much of an imperial
salutation for a temporary success in Armenia achieved by Domitius
Corbulo. To buttress his g/oria, Nero was awarded a statue in the temple
of Mars Ultor and an ovation.

Nero’s legitimacy as emperor also needed strengthening in dynastic
terms. Immediately after Claudius’ funeral, the Senate had voted the late
emperor divine honours; although the unpopularity of Tiberius and
Caligula at the time of their deaths had prevented them from being

© Quinquennium: Aur. Vic. De Caes. v.2—4. Cf. Murray 1965 (c 380); Hind 1971 (c 355); Levick
1983 (Cc 368). Nero’s baths: Mart. vit.34. The character of Tigellinus: Roper 1979 (C 389).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

NERO 245

similarly acclaimed, some female members of the domus Caesaris had been
deified (Livia, Antonia, Drusilla), and Nero and his advisers had little
choice but to do this for Claudius. The problem was that while the new
emperor could now describe himself as divi f. (and did so on his coinage
for the next year or so), Britannicus was equally a divi f., and Sulla the
son-in-law of a divus. While they remained on the scene, they would be a
constant threat. Just as the rift between Domitia Lepida and Messallina
contributed to the latter’s fall, so a rift between Nero and Agrippina
might lead her to drop her son in favour of any one of the other
descendants of Augustus who were her cousins. The immediate problem
was Britannicus; Agrippina, after all, was formally Britannicus’ mother
as well as Nero’s.

The death of Britannicus early in 55, whether or not Seneca and
Burrus were personally responsible, certainly strengthened their
position — and Nero’s — against Agrippina. So did the removal of
Agrippina’s ally Pallas from his post as a rationibus, he went on condition
that no one should ask questions about the finances of the domus Caesaris
under his stewardship. Although the removal of Pallas seems to have
been directed against him personally — his brother Felix was allowed to
remain procurator of Judaea until A.p. 60 — it was interpreted as an attack
on Agrippina; Domitia Lepida and Iunia Silana (a sister of Caligula’s first
wife Iunia Claudilla) accused her of plotting to replace her son with
Rubellius Plautus. His father-in-law Antistius Vetus was Nero’s collea-
gue as consul in this year; he went on to become legate of Upper
Germany, but was replaced after a year. Although the charge was not
believed, Agrippina’s weakness as an emperor’s mother, compared to
her power as an emperor’s wife, is demonstrated by the disappearance of
her portrait from the coinage after 55.

During these years, Seneca and Burrus seem to have used their
influence to appoint associates to positions of honour and power. The
brother of Seneca’s wife, Pompeius Paulinus from Arles, commanded
the army of Lower Germany from 56 to 58; he was succeeded by Lucius
Duvius Avitus, who came from Burrus’ home town, Vasio, also in
Narbonese Gaul. (Nero’s supporters from this region had been inherited
from his paternal ancestors, the Domitii Ahenobarbi, rather than from
the Julio-Claudians.) Avitus had been consul in 56. Another provincial
who may well have been associated with them, Lucius Pedanius
Secundus from Barcelona, had been consul in 43 and was appointed
praefectus urbi in 56. Secundus’ murder at the hands of his own slaves in
A.D. 61 was a major scandal, and provoked the veteran consular and
famous jurist C. Cassius Longinus (consul in a.D. 30) to propose strong
measures to control slaves. In accordance with the strict interpretation of

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

246 §. TIBERIUS TO NERO

the existing law, about 400 of Secundus’ slaves (present in his palace
when he was killed) were executed, in spite of demonstrations by the
urban plebs, many of whom were themselves ex-slaves.

It has been argued that Longinus’ interpretation of the law should be
seen as evidence of a new direction in imperial policy, no longer under
the influence of freedmen as it had been under Claudius. This raises the
question whether the events of Nero’s reign should be ascribed to the
‘policies’ of the emperor and his advisers rather than to his individual
personality and temperament. During his first consulship, Nero realized
that he vastly enjoyed being a public figure and at the centre of attention.
He was delighted to accept the title of pater patriae when the Senate
offered it to him a second time in 56, and he took repeated consulships
(the second in 57, and the third in 58), although a proposal put forward
by the Senate in 58, that he be consul perpetuus (something the Senate
clearly thought he would enjoy) was turned down as being without
precedent. The young man’s desire to be seen and heard led him to
intervene in senatorial debates, sometimes without proper briefing. On
one occasion he suggested, apparently on his own initiative, that all
customs dues (portoria) throughout the empire ought to be abolished,
since they caused much resentment against unscrupulous tax-farmers.
Having committed himself to this astonishing proposal, he could only be
persuaded not to implement his promise with the utmost.difficulty. The
incident is no evidence for any hypothetical imperial ‘policy’ towards the
provinces, or towards trade (there was a time when scholars anachronis-
tically suggested that it proved that Nero or his advisers favoured free
market economics); but it does throw a great deal of light on Nero’s
desire to make spectacular public utterances. Examples of imperial
beneficence, for instance settling veterans on Italian land, should not be
confused with an economic or agricultural ‘policy’. In 57, Nero founded
formal veteran settlements at Capua and Nuceria, and in 6o, Puteoli was
raised to the status of a colony as Colonia Claudia Neronensis; that may
have been less to provide for veterans than as a response to internal
political difficulties which had led to major disturbances in the colony
two years previously, necessitating the intervention of troops.

The desire to appear in public was not restricted to the political forum.
Like other good emperors, Nero took seriously his duty to provide the
Roman people with games. Unfortunately, he had an uncontrollable
desire to be seen by the public as a performer himself, both on the stage
and at the races. At first, Nero could be persuaded only to appear himself
in contests held in the relative privacy of the imperial domus (for example,
in the imperial hippodrome in the Vatican valley). The Juvenalia, held to
celebrate Nero’s achieving adulthood in a.p. 59, were still held in
private, but senators and equestrians were expected to take part. In the

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

NERO 247

quinquennial games which Nero held on Greek lines in A.D. 60 and 65,
such inhibitions were laid aside; Nero thought that, like a Greek
aristocrat, he would win fame and glory rather than opprobrium by
performing in person on the lyre and in the hippodrome. Ina Greek city,
like Naples, he felt he was appreciated for his own personal qualities as a
performer, rather than just for being emperor (though even here, he did
not formally compete in public until A.p. 64).

Nero’s personal tastes certainly affected the political scene when it
came to his matrimonial affairs. Our sources suggest that his love for
Poppaea Sabina (granddaughter of Tiberius’ legate of Moesia) led to a
complete rift with his mother. Later rumours suggested that Nero’s
relationship with Poppaea had existed several years before he divorced
Octavia in order to marry her in 62. It was said that the emperor asked his
friend Marcus Salvius Otho to marry Poppaea so that Nero could visit
her secretly. Certainly there was a good political reason why Nero was
unable to repudiate Octavia immediately: if he did so, then his claim to
the loyalty of Claudius’ supporters would be weakened in comparison
with that of Antonia’s husband Sulla Felix. This was seen by Agrippina,
who is said to have advised her son against divorcing Octavia on the
grounds that he would have to return her dowry — the empire. It is not
inconceivable that the great crime for which Nero was to go down in
history, the murder of his mother in A.D. 59, was the result of a personal
conflict about whether or nor Octavia could be divorced; the fact that
Seneca and Burrus seem not to have been involved in the initial plot to
shipwreck a pleasure-boat on which Agrippina was returning home
from dinner with her son suggests that this may not have been planned as
an act of state. It may be that the original intention was not to kill
Agrippina, but to frighten her so that she would not in future interfere
with her son’s wishes.

But in any case, once the shipwreck had been arranged by one of
Nero’s freedmen, Anicetus (who had been Nero’s paedagogus), and
Agrippina survived, Nero panicked; Agrippina threatened to publicize
the incident, and that would have led to enormous unpopularity and
perhaps Nero’s replacement by another candidate who had Agrippina’s
support. The only answer now was a cover-up, and that meant the
elimination of Agrippina. Nero consulted Seneca and Burrus, who
apparently knew nothing of the plot. Burrus pointed out that the
praetorian guard could not be expected to condone the killing of a
member of the family they were sworn to protect. In the end they
decided to claim that Agrippina had been detected conspiring to replace
Nero — not an unlikely story — and she was executed.

Agrippina’s killing may have brought an end to the quinquennium
Neronis, but it made little difference to Nero’s popularity. While Thrasea

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

248 §. TIBERIUS TO NERO

Paetus walked out of the Senate in disgust, other senators accepted the
explanation given by Nero and Seneca. But in future Nero needed the
legitimacy conferred by his marriage to Octavia more than ever; we
should not be surprised that there was a three-year hiatus between
Agrippina’s death and Nero’s divorce of Octavia. Before that could
happen, Nero needed to remove Sulla Felix, and also Rubellius Plautus
(who seems not to have had the slightest ambition to become emperor).
Sulla had been required to withdraw to Marseilles in 58. A comet in A.D.
6o led to rumours that a new princeps was at hand; Nero utilized the
occasion to require Rubellius Plautus to go into exile in Asia. In the same
year Servius Sulpicius Galba was sent to Hispania Tarraconensis as
imperial legate; the fact that Nero left him there for the rest of his reign
suggests that this too, was intended as a mechanism for removing a
potential rival, though one who was now perhaps too old to require
execution.

The same year also saw continuing success by Corbulo in the
campaign to maintain Armenia as part of the Roman sphere of influence.
After the installation of a pro-Roman king, Tigranes V, Corbulo was
transferred to the governorship of Syria. Tigranes made the mistake of
invading the Parthian dependent state of Adiabene in the following year,
which not surprisingly resulted ina Parthian military response. It seems
that Corbulo had to remove Tigranes from his throne, and in the year
after that (62) an attempt by the new legate of Cappadocia, Caesennius
Paetus, to reimpose Roman control resulted in the humiliation of his
army by the Parthians at Rhandeia. In a.p. 63, Corbulo was given an
unusual grant of imperium maius over the eastern provinces, with an
additional legion from the Danube army. Both Romans and Parthians
saw that a compromise was to their mutual advantage (both were
becoming aware of the danger posed by recent migrations by the Alani
from central Asia), and Corbulo negotiated an agreement whereby
Armenia was to be ruled by the Parthian candidate Tiridates - who
would be able to maintain order in the kingdom — but Rome’s right to
treat Armenia as part of its imperium was recognized in that he was to be
formally granted his diadem by Nero at Rome as a gift of the Roman
people. (Tiridates’ visit took place in 66.) Although these military
operations brought long-term peace to the eastern frontier, and glory to
Nero, they were expensive.

So was the rebellion in Britain, brought about — at least in part — by the
calling-in of debts of 40 million sesterces by the philosophical Seneca’s
procurators. A commission of three consulars was appointed to investi-
gate the tax-collecting system in 62. Part of the results of this investi-
gation is revealed in an inscribed dossier found at Ephesus, containing
the accumulated regulations regarding the farming of the portoria of

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

NERO 249

Asia. The /eges governing such tax-collection had the dual aim of
restraining extortion by collectors and ensuring that the public treasury
received its due. How far they commanded the respect of collectors is
another matter. It is only too probable that the emperor and Senate were
more concerned to secure revenue, whose chief destination was army
pay, than to see that publicans acted more fairly towards provincials. The
emphasis on avoiding abuses in tax-collection which can be found in a
document issued in A.D. 68 on Galba’s behalf by the prefect of Egypt,
Tiberius Iulius Alexander, reflects the discontent of provincials
throughout the empire at the exactions of Nero’s tax-collectors.°!

Nero’s reign saw a considerable number of trials of ex-governors for
extortion. Both extortion by provincial governors, and accusations
lodged against them by their opponents after their term of office had
come to an end, vere constant factors in Roman political life, under the
Principate as under the Republic. But concern that its subjects should be
justly treated should not be denied out of hand. It is even possible that
Stoic theory may have played a part: Thrasea Paetus was particularly
keen to oversee provincial matters, and on one famous occasion drew the
Senate’s attention to the unacceptable influence of the leading man in
Crete, Claudius Timarchus. In 57, Thrasea successfully prosecuted the
son-in-law of Tigellinus, an associate of Seneca’s who was to become
Burrus’ successor as praetorian prefect. But in general such trials reflect
rivalry between senators, rather than a ‘policy’ on the part of the
government.*2

Some sources blame Nero for the death of Burrus in a.p. 62,
suggesting that Nero (now aged twenty-four) wished to rid himself of
the restraining influence of his advisers. Seneca retired in this year, too:
but that does not mean that their ‘party’ lost influence, or was replaced by
another supposedly centred on Tigellinus. Tigellinus owed his rise to
Seneca, and the picture of him as an enemy of Seneca and Burrus is an
attempt by those who loyally served Nero to draw a clear but artificial
distinction between Nero’s good ‘early’ years and his wicked later years.
The deaths of Britannicus and Agrippina, the exile of Sulla and Rubellius
Plautus, and the uprising in Britain, all occurred while Seneca and
Burrus were Nero’s ministers. Seneca’s retirement from public life at the
age of sixty-five is not unexpected.

Tacitus’ account makes much of the reintroduction of trials for
maiestas in 62. Tacitus wants us to believe that such trials were a sign of a
systematic policy on the part of an emperor to destroy opposition; that
may have been the case under Domitian. But we have seen that under

5! Ephesus dossier: Engelmann and Knibbe 1986 (B 228). Egypt: edict of Tiberius lulius
Alexander, MW 328=GCN 391= AN 600; cf. Chalon 1964 (E 909), and ch. 14a below.
52 Timarchus: Tac. Amn. xv.20

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

250 §- TIBERIUS TO NERO

Tiberius, watestas-accusations flourished asa result of too little control of
affairs by the emperor, and particularly his absence from Rome. Like
charges of extortion, these accusations arose from conflicts between
senators, and the opportunities they provided for able novi homines to
acquire wealth, glory and the emperor’s friendship. Perhaps Seneca’s
retirement made it easier for such men to exploit Nero’s inexperience and
gullibility. Earlier in his reign, he had rejected mazestas-accusations on
the grounds that nobody could possibly have reason to hate him. The
first such trial that Tacitus reports was of Antistius Sosianus, accused of
composing epigrams insulting the emperor. A senatorial debate took
place, in which Thrasea Paetus objected to the consul designate’s
proposal that the death penalty be imposed. The consuls were unhappy
to accept his milder proposal of exile, and referred the matter to Nero;
Tacitus suggests that Nero was angry that the Senate had been lenient,
but there is no reason to suspect that Nero was lying when he said that he
would have preferred the milder punishment himself. Most of those
accused of treason (when they did not commit suicide first) were exiled,
not executed.

In general, those who suffered before A.D. 64 suffered because of their
descent from the family of Augustus. Sulla Felix and Rubellius Plautus,
exiled in 58 and 60, were both executed in 62; this made Nero feel secure
enough to divorce Octavia (alleging barrenness) and exile her to
Campania in order to marry Poppaea, which he did twelve days later.
Her husband Otho had been sent to govern Lusitania shortly after
Agrippina’s death in 59. Public demonstrations in Octavia’s favour by
the urban plebs, who had perhaps not forgotten the benefits Claudius
had bestowed upon it, made Nero realize that he had been wrong to
discount her influence; he claimed that she was involved in a plot, and
had her executed on 9 June. Although Poppaea gave birth to a daughter
in January 63, the baby died after a few months. Her deification as
Claudia Augusta was no consolation for the fact that Nero still had no
direct heir. He was now frightened of anyone who might have a claim to
be emperor. In 64, Decimus Iunius Silanus Torquatus, great-great-
grandson of Augustus through the younger Iulia, had to commit suicide;
the only child of the consul of a.p. 19 who had not been disgraced was
now lunia Lepida, wife of Gaius Cassius Longinus.

Nero’s mistakes had hitherto affected mainly those whom he feared as
rivals. But on the night of 18-19 July 64 there occurred a chance event
which resulted in widespread dissatisfaction with Nero both in the city
of Rome and throughout the empire. The fire of Rome and the
subsequent programme of reconstruction were immensely costly, and
contributed directly to Nero’s loss of popularity among the wealthy
throughout Italy and in certain other provinces. Later rumours ascribing

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

NERO 251

responsibility for the fire to Nero himself, anecdotes about the pleasure
he took in playing the lyre while Rome burnt, and the revulsion of
writers normally hostile to the Christians at his attempt to mark them out
as the incendiaries, illustrate the extent to which an emperor was seen as
personally responsible for the disasters as well as the benefits experienced
by those whom he ruled. In fact, Nero did what he could to prevent the
fire from spreading by creating fire-breaks (only to be accused of pulling
down buildings in areas he coveted for extensions to his own palace); and
like the emperors before him, he assisted those made homeless and
personally supervised the rebuilding programme.

But the reconstruction of large areas of the city was immensely
expensive, and put additional strains on the finances of the domus Caesaris
and of the empire as a whole. Nero’s designs for a new palace were
grandiose, and involved the wholesale expropriation of areas of Rome
that had been the traditional habitation of the senatorial elite. Nero
refused permission for the great families to rebuild their town houses on
sites that he required for his domus transitoria. Here was a case of direct
and unresolvable conflict of interest between an emperor and his
senators.

Not only senators suffered. We are told that the free distribution of
grain to the urban population had to be suspended for a time, and that
some troops were not paid. Nero was now so desperate for additional
sources of funding that — like a typical tyrant — he is said to have told
magistrates to ensure that the maximum number of cases resulted in
conviction, and confiscations. We are told that he confiscated ‘half the
province of Africa’ (effectively the fertile Bagradas valley in northern
Tunisia), executing six landowners to do so. Temple treasures were
melted down; the need for precious metals resulted in considerable
hostility in provinces both West and East, and contributed directly to the
rebellions both of Vindex and of the Jews. In May 66, the procurator of
Judaea, Gessius Florus, arrived in Jerusalem claiming that the Jews
owed the imperial fiscus arrears of tax to the extent of 4o talents of gold.
When the money was not forthcoming, he removed 17 talents from the
Temple treasury; and it was this act which sparked off violent opposition
to the Romans to an extent that the Jewish elite, including client kings,
were unable to control. An attempt by Cestius Gallus, the governor of
Syria, to suppress the rebellion with military might in November 66
failed (the reasons for his withdrawal were inexplicable to contemporar-
ies as they are to us), and Nero had to embark ona regular war to restore
Roman control over Judaea.

These fiscal problems were exacerbated by the great fire at Rome, but
as Boudica’s rebellion shows, they had already existed before. Through-
out Nero’s reign, the precious metal content of the coinage had been

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

252 j- TIBERIUS TO NERO

steadily declining. By a.p. 64, there had been a major reform of the
currency: the number of aurei to the pound of gold was increased from 40
or 42 to 45, the number of denarii to the pound of silver from 84 to 96.
The fact that Nero’s new coins were beautifully designed could not
disguise the fact that he was short of money.°3

Nero’s removal of the descendants of Augustus meant that the option
to replace him was extended to others whose connexion with the Caesars
was far more distant. Nero’s unpopularity was exploited by a group of
people who selected as their candidate C. Calpurnius Piso, the man
whose marriage to Livia Orestilla had been barred by Caligula (see
above, p.226); Claudius had recalled him from exile and gave him a
consulship in 41. The members of the conspiracy were said to have
included Faenius Rufus, co-prefect of the guard, who was afraid of the
influence of Tigellinus, with three of the sixteen praetorian tribunes. The
consul designate, Plautius Lateranus, was also involved, and many
others were accused. To give legitimacy to the cause, Claudius’ daughter
Antonia was to be taken to the praetorian camp after Nero had been
killed in the circus. There was nothing ‘republican’ about the plot.

The effect of the conspiracy was that Nero now became afraid of many
who were not related to him; and he reacted by eliminating an
extraordinary number of suspects. Seneca was one of those required to
end their lives. Donatives were given to the praetorian guard, and other
gifts to those Nero thought he could continue to trust: triumphal
insignia to Tigellinus, Petronius Turpilianus, and the later emperor
Cocceius Nerva. Nymphidius Sabinus, grandson of Caligula’s freedman
Callistus, was given insignia consularia, and appointed praetorian prefect
in association with Tigellinus. Nero may have had doubts as to whether
Tigellinus was as efficient a soldier as he had been a horse-breeder.

The death of Poppaea Sabina in a.p. 65 was a political as well as a
personal disaster for Nero: she had not provided him with an heir.%
There were rumours of further plots, and executions. C. Cassius
Longinus, husband of Iunia Lepida, was forbidden from attending
meetings of the Senate; soon after Nero asked the Senate to exile him and
his wife’s nephew Lucius Iunius Silanus. Silanus, son of the Marcus
reputedly poisoned by Agrippina in 54, was a descendant of Augustus;
although the Pisonian conspirators had ignored his prior claim to the
position of Caesar, Nero felt he had to execute him after a trial for incest.
Cassius himself was able to return from exile in Sardinia under Galba.
Another casualty of a distant relationship with the imperial family was

53 Problems in the provinces: confiscations in Africa: Pliny, HIN xvit.7.35. For Judaea, see ch.
14d. Bullion shortage: Sutherland 1987 (B 358) ch. 40.
5 Nero responsible for Poppaea’s abortion: Ameling 1986 (c 329).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

NERO 253

Antistius Vetus, Rubellius Plautius’ father-in-law, and once a protégé of
Agrippina.

Nero’s execution of those he feared continued into 66. Ostorius
Scapula, son of an early governor of Britain, had consulted astrologers
about how much longer Nero was likely to survive. P. Anteius, an ex-
consul, was accused on the same charge; both killed themselves. The list
of casualties included Seneca’s two brothers, Annaeus Mela (father of
Lucan, who had already killed himself on Nero’s orders), and Gallio
(who appears in the Acts of the Apostles as governor of Achaea);
C. Petronius, Tigellinus’ rival as Nero’s boon companion; the ex-
Praetorian prefect Rufrius Crispinus; Anicius Cerealis, who had been
consul in 65; and the two noted Stoics, Thrasea Paetus and Barea
Soranus. Stoicism may have given some of these the vocabulary and
slogans to articulate their opposition to the way Nero was behaving, but
those Roman families that now turned against Nero did not do so asa
‘group’ or ‘party’, nor, primarily, because of any philosophical beliefs
they may have held about ‘ideal kingship’, let alone ‘republicanism’.

To strengthen his own dynastic position, Nero proposed to marry
Claudius’ daughter Antonia; but she had no wish to oblige. Instead,
Nero married Statilia Messallina, the widow of another of his victims,
Vestinus Atticus. She counted amongst her ancestors Augustus’ gener-
als Statilius Taurus and Valerius Messalla Corvinus.

Nero also made every effort to re-establish his military prestige after
65. He made the most of the solution to the Armenian problem which
had been achieved by Corbulo, and arranged some spectacular festivals
on the occasion of King Tiridates’ visit to Rome in 66 to receive his
diadem from Nero’s own hands. New issues of coins stressed ‘Augustan
Victory’, the Altar of Peace, and the fact that ‘he shut the temple of Janus
after peace had been achieved by land and sea’. Nero honoured generals
like Vespasian and Suetonius Paulinus (who was granted a second
consulship), perhaps to counter any threat from the virtus demonstrated
by Corbulo. And he planned to gain military prestige himself by leading
a major expedition in the East during these years; it was a period when
both the Romans (on the lower Danube) and the Parthians felt that they
were coming under increasing pressure from tribes originating further
east (the legate of Moesia between A.D. 60 and 67, Tiberius Plautius
Silvanus, had already been involved in fighting). The good relations
between Nero (and later Vespasian) and the Parthians suggest that in the
context of the solution to the Armenian conflict, the two states had come
to an agreement about the need for military co-operation. Nero
advertised an expedition against the ‘Caspian Gates’ at the eastern end of
the Caucasus, and astrologers predicted that he would be enthroned in

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

254 5. TIBERIUS TO NERO

glory at Jerusalem. In preparation for the campaign, the Fourteenth
Legion was withdrawn from Britain; it had distinguished itself in the
repression of Boudica, and was granted the title Martia Victrix.
Turpilianus (one man Nero trusted) was put in charge of raising a new
legion in Italy. The annexation of Pontus as a province in A.D. 64 may
also have been connected with Nero’s eastern plans. The coins struck
during his last years reveal an increasing interest in military matters.%

But Nero’s prime concern apparently continued to be the glory he
could achieve as a public performer. Only the Greeks, he was heard to
say, appreciated real virtue. He may originally have wanted to visit
Greece in A.D. 65, to be able to compete at the regular Olympic games. In
the event, certain quadrennial games had to be rescheduled in order to
allow him to participate, and carry off the prizes. It is clear that his visit
made him genuinely popular in Greece. At Corinth, he dramatically re-
enacted the ‘liberation’ of Greece from direct Roman administration, as
played out by Flamininus in 196 B.c. 5

During Nero’s journey to Greece with his entourage, a further
conspiracy was uncovered at Beneventum (details are sparse, and it is not
clear whether Nero was present when the conspiracy was brought to
light). The leading figure was Annius Vinicianus, who was executed.
Nor is it clear what this man’s relationship was to the Annius Vinicianus
who was involved in Camillus Scribonianus’ rebellion against Claudius:
his brother may have been the Annius Pollio implicated in the Pisonian
conspiracy in the previous year. What is known is that he was Corbulo’s
principal supporter. He had been /egatus of the Fifth Legion in Corbulo’s
Armenian campaign of ¢. a.D. 58, and was the husband of one of
Corbulo’s two daughters (the other was later to become Domitian’s
wife). In the previous year, Annius had been sent by Corbulo to
accompany Tiridates on his journey to Rome; Cassius Dio says that this
was as much to put a hostage of his good faith into Nero’s hands as
anything else. Tiridates had commented to Nero ‘What a good slave he
had in Corbulo’. The conspiracy at Beneventum — whether real or
imagined — meant that Nero knew that he could now no longer rely on
Corbulo’s support. The implication was clear, and Corbulo was sum-
moned to meet Nero in Greece, where he was ordered to kill himself. A
little later (and presumably in connexion with the same conspiracy) the
legates of the upper and lower Rhine armies were also summoned to
Nero in Greece, and forced to suicide. They were the brothers Publius
Sulpicius Scribonius Proculus and Scribonius Rufus, sons of a senator

55 Nero as imperator: ILS 233 (Luna)=GCN 149=AN 287. PACE P. R. TERRA

MARIQUE PARTA IANUM CLUSIT: Sutherland 1987 (B 358) ch. 39.
% Liberation of Greece: ILS 8794 =GCN 64= AN 127.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

NERO 255

executed (in the very Senate-house, according to our sources) by
Caligula in A.D. qo.

On his arrival in Greece Nero heard of the failure of Cestius Gallus,
governor of Syria, to restore Roman control over Jerusalem in
November 66. Gallus seems to have died soon after, and it was
imperative for someone to be appointed quickly to take command in the
full-scale war which needed to be fought for control over Judaea. In
February 67 Nero appointed two men to replace Gallus, Mucianus as
legate of Syria, and Vespasian to take command of the war itself; it is not
surprising that the administrative problems involved in separating what
had been a single provincial administration into two different commands
should have caused friction between the two generals, and we do not
have to suppose that there was any deep ill-feeling between the two.
Their disagreements did not prevent Vespasian from pursuing the
pacification of Galilee with general success during the years A.D. 67 and
68, as described in ch. 14b of this volume. By the time of Nero’s death,
when Vespasian ceased major operations in Palestine, there was little left
for the Roman army to do apart from the recovery (and destruction) of
Jerusalem itself and of a number of other forts whose reduction was
more a matter of demonstrating Rome’s might than of removing a
serious threat.

By the winter of A.D. 67/8, it had become clear to Helius and the other
members of the household who were looking after affairs in the capital
that Nero’s artistic victories in Greece had weakened, not strengthened,
his position with the Roman elite. In January, Helius went to Greece in
person (in spite of the dangerous winter weather) to persuade Nero that a
return to Rome was imperative. As he travelled back to Rome via
Naples, Nero’s first concern was to be honoured as a Greek Olympic
victor by driving his chariot through specially constructed gaps in the
walls of the cities he passed on his journey to Rome via Naples. He
showed much less concern when he heard that Gaius Iulius Vindex,
legate of Gallia Lugdunensis, had thrown off his allegiance — news which
teached him at Naples on the anniversary of his mother’s murder.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 6

FROM NERO TO VESPASIAN

T. E. J. WIEDEMANN

I. A.D. 68

In January 68, Nero had been persuaded by his freedman Helius to break
off his successful and popular tour of Greece and return to Italy
immediately. The fact that Helius braved the winter storms to cross the
Adriatic confirms that he was deeply concerned about the possibility not
just of a conspiracy among members of the Senate at Rome, but of a
rising by one or more provincial governors with their armies. The
evidence for this was a series of letters calling for Nero’s overthrow
circulated to other governors by C. Iulius Vindex, probably the legate of
Gallia Lugdunensis. Some of the recipients passed the letters they
received from Vindex on to Rome via local imperial procurators. But
those who were administering the government on Nero’s behalf cannot
have been certain which governors if any were still to be trusted.

Imperial procurators in Tarraconensis, for instance, will have realized
that the legate, Servius Sulpicius Galba, was taking no action to punish
those who were circulating verses hostile to Nero. No one could tell
whether Galba might not be similarly tolerant of those — perhaps the
same people — who were plotting armed disloyalty.

The only direct evidence we have for assessing Vindex’s reasons for
rebelling, and his objectives, are the anti-Neronian writings he circu-
lated, and the inscriptions on the coins he minted to pay his followers.
Suetonius tells us that Vindex referred to Nero as ‘Ahenobarbus’,
emphasizing that he had not been born a member of the domus Caesaris,
and condemned him for his philhellenism: he was a charioteer and lyre-
player with a weak voice. The coinage issues confirm that Vindex sought
to represent himself as asserting traditional Roman values, protecting
the Roman community against a tyrant. Legends on coins refer to the
‘Salvation of the Human Race’, showing the oak wreath bestowed ona
Roman soldier for saving a fellow-citizen’s life, together with the letters
SPQR. There is an aureus with Mars the avenging war-god, and a pair of
military standards described as belonging to the Roman people. There
are denarii depicting ‘Rome restored (to freedom)’, and Hercules and
Jupiter as liberators. Very similar coins were minted by Galba in Spain

256

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 68 257

after he had thrown off his allegiance to Nero. The Spanish denarii refer
to the ‘Freedom’ and to the ‘Life-force of the Roman People’, with
images of Mars the avenger and a liberty-cap. Perhaps the most
interesting issue shows personifications of Spain and Gaul with a
Victory between them, and the legend ‘Harmony of the Spanish and
Gallic Provinces’; the reverse represents the ‘Victory of the Roman
People’ driving in a two-horse chariot. The similarity between Vindex’s
issues and those of Galba indicates collusion between the two legates
after they had withdrawn support from Nero, but it cannot prove that
Galba was actively involved in Vindex’s conspiracy from the beginning.
Nor does the fact that both legates minted coins with inscriptions
asserting republican virtues and referring to the ‘Roman People’ mean
that Vindex or Galba rebelled against Nero in order to re-activate a form
of republican constitution. That was not what ‘The Liberty of the
Roman People’ meant to Vindex, whose ancestors had not even been
citizens at the time of the Republic. He will have wanted to replace a
failed princeps by a better one, and will have been well aware that he
himself had no chance of attaining that position. On the other hand that
does not mean that an assertion of loyalty to the SPOR was simply a
cover for treason against the legitimate emperor; for there was a sense in
which the SPOR were sovereign. They could not of course make one
man more or less powerful than another; but they could recognize which
man, and which group of supporters, had the most power and authority.
What Vindex recognized was the right of the Senate and people to decide
who it was who was actually in control — hoping, of course, that it would
not be Nero, but someone else who had a claim to inherit the property
and powers of the Caesars. An obvious candidate was Galba in Spain,
whose name had already been mentioned as a claimant in A.D. q1.!
Vindex was not just a legate of Caesar; he was also a powerful man in
Gaul in his own right. We are told that his ancestors had been ‘kings’
amongst the Aquitanians (ethnically, Basques, although the root *vent-
is Celtic). We should not be surprised that Vindex made use of his local
connexions; and we hear of Basque fighters volunteering to join Galba.
Rivalry between different Gallic tribes, as well as between Gauls and

1 The narrative sources for A.D. 68 are unsatisfactory: we cannot even be certain that Vindex’s
province was Lugdunensis, Suet. Ner. 40-50; Plut. Ga/ba; and Dio Lxm(Lxitt).22-Lx1i1.3. On the
numismatic evidence, see Sutherland 1987 (B 358) chs. 41-6; Zehnacker 1987 (B 364). For Vindex’s
coin issues, see GCN 70 (cf. MW 27): SALVS GENERIS HVMANI, SPQR; MARS VLTOR;
SIGNA POPVLI ROMANI; HERCVLES ADSERTOR; ROMA RESTITVTA,; IVPPITER
LIBERATOR. For Galba’s coins, see GCN 72 (cf. MW 25-6): LIBERTAS P.R.; GENIO P.R.;
CONCORDIA HISPANIARVM ET GALLIARVM; VICTORIA P.R.

For discussions of the end of Nero’s reign, Griffin 1984 (c 352); Reece 1969 (c 387); Warmington
1969 (€ 409) ch. 13. The ‘native revolt’ interpretation of Vindex’s uprising can still be found; Dyson
1971 (A 25). Galba’s supporters are discussed in Syme 1982 (c 400). There is a readable biography of
Galba in French; Sancery 1983 (c 390).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

258 6. NERO TO VESPASIAN

communities of Italian settler origin with their traditional loyalty to the
Ahenobarbi, will have played a role in determining who joined and who
opposed Vindex. But there is no basis for the theory, popular earlier in
this century, that Vindex’s revolt was essentially a ‘native’ uprising
against Roman rule. Tacitus follows the official Flavian interpretation of
events in coupling Vindex with Civilis as though both were primarily
native chieftains seeking to set up their own separate (but Romanized)
states in north-west Europe. Like Civilis, Vindex will have exploited
what opposition there was to Roman rule, aggravated by Nero’s fiscal
requirements; but it would be anachronistic to see him as a nationalist
freedom-fighter rather than as a Roman senator reacting against Nero’s
‘tyranny’.

While the numismatic evidence demonstrates that those who rose
against Nero agreed in recognizing the ultimate authority of the ‘Roman
Senate and People’, the literary sources suggest that it was not clear from
the start that Vindex would win the support of Galba, or of anyone else.
Although Galba kept back evidence of Vindex’s intentions from Nero’s
procurators, he was sceptical of Vindex’s chances of success. It was Titus
Vinius Rufinus, the commander of the Sixth Legion (currently the only
legion stationed in Spain), who pointed out that if Nero’s opponents did
not all rally round Vindex now, the frightened and angry emperor would
subsequently find it easy to deal with them one by one.

Galba was acclaimed as ‘Caesar’ by his troops at the regular guberna-
torial assizes held at New Carthage on 2 or 3 April. He immediately
rejected the imperial title, which soldiers had no right to bestow, but
called himself ‘Legate of the Roman Senate and People’. There was some
opposition: the proconsul of Baetica, Obultronius Sabinus, and his
legate, Cornelius Marcellus, had to be executed. Apart from Titus
Vinius, Galba was sure of the support of the quaestor Caecina Alienus,
who took over the government of Baetica, and in particular the legate of
Lusitania, Marcus Salvius Otho. Between them, the three governors
controlled most of the empire’s resources of precious metals. Otho had
for many years been an associate of the young Nero. Almost nine years
before, Nero had sent him to Lusitania as governor in order to facilitate
his own access to Otho’s wife Poppaea. Poppaea was now dead; Otho
had nothing to lose from Nero’s overthrow, and much to gain. Galba
would be seventy in December, and had no son to succeed him in the
imperial office, while Otho was thirty-seven, and available as Galba’s
supporter and successor.

Nero had heard of Vindex’s rebellion at Naples. He was not unduly
concerned at news of unrest in Gaul, but Galba would have some chance
of winning recognition as Caesar; his defection changed the picture
completely. It confirmed that no governors could be trusted any longer.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 68 259

Petronius Turpilianus, who had proved so loyal in the suppression of
Piso’s conspiracy, was sent to northern Italy to assemble an army, to
include the Fourteenth Legion and a new one raised from the marines at
Misenum. As a deterrent to others, Galba’s estates in Italy were
confiscated; Galba retaliated by auctioning off the property of the domus
Caesaris in Spain, using the proceeds to raise a second legion from
Roman citizens in Spain, the Seventh Ga/biana. Its legionary eagle was
formally presented on 10 June. Galba appointed as its commander a man
from Tolosa, Antonius Primus; he had been expelled from the Senate in
A.D. 61 for helping to forge a will, probably before reaching the
praetorship, and exiled to Marseilles. As one of Nero’s exiles — and
almost certainly an acquaintance of Vindex — he had immediately given
his support to Galba.

Primus, Otho, Vinius and Alienus had made it clear that they were
deserting Nero in favour of Galba. Others who played an important part
in Nero’s overthrow did not make their intentions so clear, either to
contemporaries or to us. At some point in A.p. 68, the legate of the Third
Legion in north Africa, Clodius Macer, threw off the authority of the
government in Rome, deposed the proconsul of Africa, and raised an
additional legion, which he called I Macriana Liberatrix. A denarius,
probably from Carthage, describes him not as emperor but simply as
‘Propraetor of Africa’ (it also carries the letters S{enatus] C[onsulto /).
Galba had to use force to suppress Macer. We are told that members of
Nero’s household went to Macer in Africa and urged him to resist Galba;
that may have been before or after Nero’s death and Galba’s recognition
by the Senate in June. But Rome experienced a considerable shortfall of
grain well before Nero’s death; and that suggests that Macer had rejected
Nero’s authority, and prevented corn-ships from leaving Carthage for
Italy, soon after he heard of Vindex’s rebellion. Macer may have thought
that by starving Rome, he could persuade the Senate to recognize that it
was he, not Galba, who had the power to be Nero’s successor.?

The actions of the legate commanding the upper Rhine army,
Verginius Rufus, are even more difficult to interpret. We must assume
that Rufus, like his colleagues, had been approached by Vindex. When
Vindex offered Galba the support of Gaul, he claimed to have 100,000
soldiers to put at his disposal; since Vindex’s own provincial levies only
came to 20,000 men, this can only mean that he thought that some at least
of the Rhine legions, and their commanders, would support his coup.
On the other hand, it is also possible that Rufus stayed loyal to Nero.
Tacitus says explicitly that the Rhine legions stood by Nero and the
Caesars longer than other armies did.

Rufus mobilized his legions and marched south west through the

2 Macer coins: Sutherland 1987 (B 358) ch. 42; GCN 73; cf. MW 24.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

260 6. NERO TO VESPASIAN

Franche Comté in the direction of central Gaul. When he heard of Rufus’
march, Vindex was attempting unsuccessfully to reduce Lyons, which
remained loyal to Nero out of gratitude for recent favours; he broke off
the siege, marched towards Rufus, and met him at Vesontio, probably
towards the end of May. There followed a battle in which Vindex’s levies
were defeated by the Rhine legions, superior in numbers, weapons and
training; the only option left to Vindex was suicide. Soon (but not
necessarily immediately) after the battle, Rufus was acclaimed emperor;
he rejected the offer (or several such offers). Many years later, the epitaph
on his tomb stated that ‘after Vindex’s defeat, he laid claim to the
imperial power not on his own behalf but on that of the fatherland’.

Since the 1950s, the consensus amongst scholars — following the
account given by Cassius Dio — has been that the Battle of Vesontio was a
mistake. Vindex and Rufus were co-conspirators who had arranged to
combine their forces and then to march on Italy together in support of
Galba. Unfortunately, when Vindex’s largely Gaulish levies met the
legionaries from the Rhine, the resentment which the two groups felt for
one another resulted in unexpected violence which the respective
commanders could not contain. Similar uncontrolled violence by
Roman troops during the campaigns of the following year suggests that
this is not impossible. On this interpretation, the Rhine legions may have
hated the Gauls and their upstart leader, but that does not mean that they
were loyal to Nero; indeed, having flexed their muscles at Vesontio, they
offered to put their own commander in Nero’s place.

If Vindex was indeed certain of Rufus’ support for himself and Galba,
it is curious that he should have marched north to meet Rufus at
Vesontio instead of waiting for his army at Lyons or Vienne. It is more
likely that Vindex feared that Rufus and the Rhine army would stand by
Nero. As for Rufus, he may well have destroyed Vindex on Nero’s
behalf; but very soon after the battle news reached Gaul that Nero had
lost his nerve and killed himself. It was now essential for Rufus to hide
the fact that he and his soldiers had supported Nero and destroyed
Galba’s allies, artd it was perhaps only then that the Rhine legions
acclaimed Rufus as an imperial candidate — not as an alternative to Nero,
but as an alternative to Galba, who would not (and did not) look kindly
upon what they had done to Vindex.3

Rufus was certainly not acting in association with Galba; Galba later
separated him from his army in order to give him the ‘honour’ of

3 On the difficulties of evaluating the tradition about Vesontio, see Brunt 1959 (c 334); Daly 1975
(c 342); Levick 1985 (c 370). Cassius Dio’s account is at Lxit(Lxttt).24. Rufus’ epitaph (Pliny, Ep.
vt.10.4; cf. 1.1):

Hic situs est Rufus, pulso qui Vindice quondam
imperium adseruit non sibi sed patriae.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 68 261

accompanying him on his journey to Rome. The immediate effect of the
news of Rufus’ destruction of Vindex was to make Galba withdraw to
his base at Clunia, where he is said to have contemplated suicide himself.
It was later asserted that he erroneously thought that Rufus had betrayed
him; he may rather have feared that the Rhine legions would impose
their own candidate, or that their victory would allow Nero to re-
establish his authority.

Rufus’ victory at Vesontio turned out to be irrelevant to the final
issue, since early in June Nero had lost his nerve and effectively
abandoned the administration of affairs. We do not know enough about
the exact chronology of events that year to be able to say whether he had
heard of Vindex’s defeat, or of the Rhine army’s attempt to acclaim
Rufus. He may have suspected the loyalty of Turpilianus’ army in
northern Italy. A plan to flee to Egypt led Nymphidius Sabinus, who in
Tigellinus’ continued illness commanded the praetorian guard, to
promise them a donative of 30,000 sesterces each if they broke their oath
of loyalty to Nero, on the grounds that their emperor had already
abandoned them. The Senate’s role was to confirm that Nero no longer
had the authority to govern, and to decide who in fact had that authority.
On 9 June (or possibly 11) it declared Nero an enemy of the Roman
people, recognized Galba as Caesar, acclaimed him as Augustus, and
voted him imperial powers. Nero, realizing that the only support he had
left was that of certain members of his household staff (and, perhaps, of
the Roman plebs), committed suicide; his last words — ‘what a creative
artist I have been’ — show how much more interested he was in his public
image than in governing. Galba’s freedman Icelus was released from
custody and travelled to Clunia in a mere seven days to inform the new
emperor of the events in the capital.

Each new emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty had faced consider-
able but quite different problems in establishing himself. Galba had to
face most of them together. At Tiberius’ accession, there had been no
previous transfer of power from one emperor to another; but Tiberius,
Caligula and Nero had been the legitimate heirs of their predecessors,
Galba’s links with the Julio-Claudians were so tenuous as to be
worthless in terms of loyalty. He made what he could of these links: an
official document from Egypt calls him ‘Lucius Livius Galba’, and
Livia’s head appears on his coins.* But like Claudius, Galba was an
‘outsider’ taking over possessio of the domus Caesaris after the death of its
previous paterfamilias, and in the absence of direct heirs. As in A.D. 41,
there were others who put forward their own claims and who either had
to be eliminated (like Clodius Macer in Africa), or whose support had to

‘* Galba is called ‘Livius’ in the Edict of Tiberius Julius Alexander: MW 328= AN 600 (see
above, p. 249). DIVA AVGVSTA coin: MW 75.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

262 6. NERO TO VESPASIAN

be won, at least until they could be made safe, like Verginius Rufus.
Galba had to ensure that all these groups would come to be as dependent
upon him as they had been on earlier Caesars; under the circumstances,
we should not be too surprised at his lack of success.

The nature of the Principate naturally gave any new emperor the
advantage of having patronage to bestow, and being able to remove
from positions of authority men upon whose loyalty he had no claims, to
replace them with others who would be épso facto in the new emperot’s
debt. While Verginius Rufus was beholden to no one, his successor
Hordeonius Flaccus was indebted for his office to Galba. At the start of a
new reign, individuals competed to win the favour of a man who
brought few supporters with him from Spain. Thus although the legions
on the lower Rhine, under the command of Fonteius Capito, had not
been involved in the events at Vesontio, individual officers were keen to
show exceptional loyalty to Galba. At Bonn, the legionary commander
Fabius Valens (who claimed to have been a supporter of Rufus, and
therefore, perhaps, an opponent of Nero) was quick to administer the
oath of loyalty to Galba. Later on in the year he again tried to
demonstrate his loyalty by executing his commander, Fonteius Capito,
on the grounds that he was plotting against Galba. Valens will have
assumed that he deserved a reward for his efforts, perhaps in the shape of
the Rhine army command. Galba did not reward him, and instead
appointed Aulus Vitellius to command the army on the lower Rhine in
December. It was Otho who had to pay the price for Galba’s ingratitude.

With the exception of Africa under Macer — whom Galba soon
destroyed, possibly after a naval campaign — there was now no province
which failed to recognize the new emperor. But not all those who held
military power owed their authority to Galba. Galba’s authority might
be seen as stemming from the decision by the praetorian prefect
Nymphidius Sabinus to abandon Nero. It was Sabinus who was in
effective control of Rome. He allowed sections of the urban mob, those
who thought that they had suffered under Nero, to indulge in attacks of
physical violence on some of Nero’s freedmen. He also removed the
invalid Ofonius Tigellinus from his position as co-commander of the
guard, claiming that Tigellinus had been particularly involved in all the
evil aspects of Nero’s administration (a myth which those who had
loyally served Nero for many years were happy to accept). The removal
of Tigellinus concentrated power in Sabinus’ hands; and Sabinus soon
came to think of himself as potentially more than a kingmaker. To justify
a bid for control of the imperial household, rumours were circulated that
he was in fact an illegitimate son of Caligula, whose freedman his
grandfather had been.

Galba’s insistence that, since he was a member of a republican family

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 68 263

that could be traced back for several centuries, his authority stemmed
from his own domus as well as, and as much as, that of the Caesars, is not
likely to have endeared him to those who belonged to the imperial
household. Like other emperors, Galba depended on the help of trusted
freedmen — but his own freedmen, Asiaticus and Icelus (to whom he
granted equestrian privileges), were naturally a threat to those who had
served the Julio-Claudians. Otho was later to win considerable success
by representing himself as Nero’s successor as head of that domus.
Anecdotes were told of how Galba’s idea of distributing largesse was to
give people tiny amounts of money, but stress that they came from his
private purse, and not that of the Caesars. He had at first rejected the title
of ‘Caesar’ altogether; although he accepted it from the senatorial
delegation which met him at Narbo on his journey from Spain to Rome,
the senators noted that they were entertained off Galba’s family dinner-
service, and not off that of the Caesars which had been specially sent out
to him. Titus Vinius had to make it clear to Galba that this snobbery
would not help him to gain legitimacy.

Galba’s arrival in Rome would mean changes in the distribution of
power there; he was bringing his own supporters with him, Icelus and
Asiaticus to help him in the domus, and Titus Vinius and Otho in the
government. These men were bound to replace not just the leading
administrators within the domus, but also public officials appointed by
Nero — for instance, the praefectus urbi, Flavius Sabinus. Rumours that
Galba might appoint the commander of his legionary guard, Cornelius
Laco, to the praetorian prefectship, implied that Nymphidius Sabinus
would either have to accept a much less prominent role than that which
as ‘Benefactor of the Senate and People’ he had been playing since Nero’s ©
death, or seize power before Galba and his supporters reached Rome. In
addition, Macer’s interruption of corn supplies from Africa was one of
the factors that undermined Galba’s popularity at Rome. We do not have
enough evidence to be entirely certain whether Nymphidius Sabinus did
in fact plan a conspiracy, or whether he and his friends were ‘framed’
either by those at Rome who wished to curry Galba’s favour, or those
accompanying Galba on his journey who had no wish to tolerate
potential rivals. We are told that one night in late summer, Sabinus
attempted to enter the praetorian camp; his way was blocked by one of
the tribunes, Antonius Honoratus, who had him killed. It was claimed
that Sabinus held in his hands a speech, composed by the senator
Cingonius Varro, appealing for the support of the troops.

Whatever the threat Sabinus may have represented, Galba’s reaction
was harsh. He ordered the execution of Varro, and took the opportunity
to kill other friends of Sabinus and of Nero, such as the exiled king
Mithridates of Pontus (who had said some unpleasant things about

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

264 6. NERO TO VESPASIAN

Galba’s appearance). Petronius Turpilianus was ordered to commit
suicide. These deaths did not bode well for those who hoped that
clementia would be one of Galba’s imperial virtues. As Galba’s entourage
approached Rome, the marines whom Nero had constituted into a
regular legion during his last months appealed to be allowed the same
privileges as the new Seventh Legion which was accompanying him
from Spain. Galba rejected their pleas; several of them lost their lives in
the violence that followed.

Galba was rapidly losing much of the goodwill with which he had set
out. It was not just his parsimonious personal regime which led to
resentment. He realized that Nero had been unpopular during his last
years because of the need to raise funds in the provinces in order to pay
for new buildings and spectacles in the capital. Galba’s solution was to
cut expenditure. He even went so far as to set up a commission of thirty
senators to try to get back money which Nero had bestowed on his
favourites. Needless to say they claimed to be able to recover only one
tenth of what Nero had disbursed.

There were other aspects of Galba’s administration that undermined
support for him. On Nero’s death, those exiled by the tyrant during the
last few years returned to Rome, and some opened legal proceedings
against those who had accused them; a praetor-elect, Helvidius Priscus,
was particularly keen to begin a vendetta against all those who had
supported Nero. When Galba arrived, he made it clear that the past
should best be forgotten. As expected, he, or Icelus, arranged for the
execution of some of the principal freedmen of the domus Caesaris: Helius,
Polyclitus, Petinus and Patrobius. On the other hand many (including
Helvidius Priscus) took it amiss that Vinius, a notorious womanizer,
saved Tigellinus because he was interested in his widowed daughter. We
are left with the impression that Galba was not displeased by rumours
hostile to Vinius: Vinius’ role as Galba’s closest adviser — symbolized by
his designation to the consulship for A.D. 69 as the emperor’s colleague —
gave him more power than was safe.

Historians once thought that one of Galba’s strengths as an imperial
candidate had been that he had no obvious successor. In fact there was a
grand-nephew, Publius Dolabella, and the Caesars’ personal bodyguard
of German soldiers assumed that he would be Galba’s heir. This
displeased Galba: the history of earlier emperors had indicated that when
the succession was clear, those who wished to prosper transferred their
loyalty from the setting to the rising sun. A plurality of potential
successors could be as much to an emperor’s advantage as a source of
instability for the empire (see above, ch.5 n.4). The fact that Galba
should have thought that the adoption of a son and successor would be a
solution to his present difficulties therefore requires explanation. Even
more surprising is the identity of the man he adopted: Lucius Calpurnius

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 69-70 265

Piso Frugi Licinianus. This Piso was the youngest son of the consul of
A.D. 27, destroyed by Messallina in a.p. 47. Although he had been exiled
under Nero as a member of a family who seem consistently to have
represented a threat to the Julio-Claudians, Piso had no political
ambitions (we do not even know whether he had ever been a senator).
The choice of Piso was not made because Galba needed the support of
Piso’s relatives. Galba claimed that he was choosing Piso on entirely
personal grounds; many years before, as a private citizen, he had decided
to make Piso his own heir, and now that Galba had become a Caesar, he
asserted that there was no reason to take any other factors into account
(in fact Piso was a brother of the Cn. Pompeius Magnus who married
Claudius’ daughter Antonia and related to the Julians through Seribo-
nia: see Stemma III, p. 992). But if Galba’s decision was determined by
private factors, why did he pass over his own nephew, Dolabella?

One explanation for the adoption of as unspectacular a successor as
Piso may be that there already was an obvious successor: Otho. Otho
was associated with Nero’s ‘good’, early years; he was popular with the
praetorians, and had considerable support within the domus Caesaris. His
influence may be detected in the fact that Galba appointed, or retained,
Poppaea’s brother Scipio Asiaticus as suffect consul for the last months
of 68. Otho also had the support of Titus Vinius. He had undertaken to
marry Vinius’ daughter if Vinius persuaded Galba to adopt him. Thus
Vinius would ultimately, if all went well, end up as the grandfather of
Otho’s son and successor. The moment Otho was formally recognized as
the emperor’s successor, Galba’s own role would have been played out.

II A.D. 69-70

Our knowledge of the calendar year 69 is much better than of 68, since
Tacitus’ description of the events of this ‘long’ year in his Histories
happens to survive. Tacitus’ account naturally has its limitations. It
depends upon pro-Flavian traditions and was written with hindsight,
with the problems of the reigns of Nerva and Trajan in mind. It also
suffers from the limitations of ancient historiography asa literary form —
in particular, its overemphasis on warfare. Certainly Roman armies won
and lost two great battles in a.p. 69; but the success or failure of
candidates for the imperial office depended on whether they could win
the loyalty of very much wider groups of people than merely the
particular soldiers who fought on the battlefields of northern Italy.5

By replacing Verginius Rufus with Hordeonius Flaccus, Galba had

5 The events of a.p. 69 are covered by Tacitus in books 1-111 of the Histories: Heubner 1963-82 (B
84); Wellesley 1972 (B 193); Chilver 1979 (B 27). We also have Plutarch’s Ga/ba and Otho, Suetonius,
Dio cxi and Lxiv, and a summary by Josephus (BJ tv. 1of).

The readable modern narrative accounts by Wellesley 1975 (c 412) and Greenhalgh 1975 (c 351)
put more stress on the military action than on analysis of the political manoeuvring.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

266 6. NERO TO VESPASIAN

removed a potential rival for the imperial office, and Titus Vinius a
personal enemy; they had not won the allegiance of the three legions of
the upper Rhine army. The appointment of one of his earliest supporters,
Caecina Alienus, as legate of the two legions encamped at Mainz is an
indication of Galba’s anxieties about them. It is not particularly
surprising that on 1 January A.D. 69, Hordeonius Flaccus was unable to
persuade the legions at Mainz to take the annual military oath to Galba;
as in the previous year, an oath of loyalty to the ‘Roman Senate and
People’ cloaked treason to the emperor. Such disrespect would only
become a serious threat if the troops found an alternative candidate for
the imperial office, more willing to risk civil war than Rufus had been.
Flaccus was old and lame, and not a potential emperor.

Just a month or so previously, however, the lower Rhine army had
received Aulus Vitellius as its commander in place of the executed
Fonteius Capito. Vitellius, born on 7 September A.p. 12, and consul
ordinarius in A.D. 48, was an illustrious figure; his father had been
Claudius’ foremost supporter (see above, p. 236), and he himself had
been trusted by Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. The suggestion
that Vitellius should be offered the imperial office apparently came from
Caecina Alienus. Our sources ascribe his readiness to abandon Galba to
his fear of an impending prosecution for corruption committed as
governor of Baetica; sucha prosecution may cover a desire on the part of
Vinius and Otho, Galba’s two other early supporters, to have him out of
the way. The revolt had been carefully prepared, possibly even before
Vitellius’ appointment. On the same evening the news from Mainz was
brought to Vitellius in Cologne, presumably via Bonn. The legate of the
legion stationed at Bonn was Fabius Valens, the man who had engin-
eered Capito’s execution. Valens was disappointed that Galba had
insufficiently rewarded him for having removed Capito. He took the lead
in persuading Vitellius to risk a bid for the imperial office, despite the
dangers — quite apart from the military question, Vitellius’ wife and
children were in Rome. Although Vitellius had no reason to be
dissatisfied with Galba, he had nothing to hope for from the coming
regime of Titus Vinius and his prospective son-in-law Otho. When
Valens appeared at the legate’s palace at Cologne (the remains of which
can still be seen underneath the present town hall) and saluted Vitellius as
his imperator, Vitellius was prepared to accept. The legions further
downriver at Neuss and Xanten joined Valens on the same day, and on
the following day the upper Rhine army at Mainz took the oath to him as
well.6

Galba’s procurator for Belgic Gaul, Pompeius Propinquus, had
immediately informed the government of the trouble at Mainz on 1

6 Virellius’ proclamation: Murison 1979 (c 378).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 69-70 267

January. Galba may well have thought that the animosity of Verginius
Rufus’ old army was directed not so much against himself, as against
Vinius and Otho; 1 January was the day when Galba and Vinius entered
upon their joint consulship, and many had assumed (Plutarch tells us)
that on that day Otho would be publicly acclaimed as Galba’s adoptive
son and successor. Even if he had known that the Rhine armies had
already gone so far as to proclaim a rival emperor, Galba will still have
thought that his chances of regaining the loyalty of these armies would
be improved if he showed that there was an alternative to Vinius and
Otho. If he rejected making his nephew Publius Cornelius Dolabella his
heir, then it was because he was too fond of him to force him into the
position of being a foil to Otho. But Piso mattered less; Galba was
willing to put his life at risk. On 10 January he announced his decision to
his consilium of amici, and then presented Piso to the praetorians and to
the Senate as the new Lucius Sulpicius Galba Caesar.

The adoption of Piso was not so much a matter of indicating who was
to be the next emperor, as indicating who was not: Otho. Otho moved
swiftly to recover the prize that had as good as been his. Vinius had let
him down in the imperial consilium; Otho had no need of his support
now, and Vinius seems not to have been aware of Otho’s plans. Galba
had alienated the domus Caesaris by executing its freedmen and replacing
them with his own; he had alienated certain praetorian tribunes as a
result of the coup ascribed to Nymphidius Sabinus, and the rank and file
by refusing to pay out the donative of 30,000 sesterces per man promised
them by Sabinus in June. (Strictly speaking, a donative had hitherto been
a legacy paid out of a deceased Caesar’s will as a reward for past loyalty,
and Galba had no need to make such a payment on Nero’s behalf. But the
insulting quip that ‘he levied his soldiers, and did not buy them’ will have
done his popularity little good.) Otho, perhaps with Vinius’ backing,
had no difficulty in finding supporters amongst the praetorians, the vigi/es
and the urban cohorts. Early in January Galba himself was frightened
enough of the extent of that support to retire several tribunes. They and
their friends were easily persuaded to back Otho’s coup.

On the advice of his astrologer, Otho finally chose 15 January for his
enterprise. He accompanied Galba to a public sacrifice at the temple of
Apollo on the Palatine; at the appropriate moment his freedman
Onomastus gave the agreed message — that ‘the building surveyors are
waiting for you at home’ — and Otho slipped away to be saluted as
emperor by just twenty-three soldiers of the bodyguard. When this small
group of supporters reached the praetorian camp, there was no oppo-
sition from the officers. Galba’s associates — including Vinius, apparently
still unaware of Otho’s plans — sent to the other troops present in Rome
for military support, but without success. A false rumour that Otho had

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

268 6. NERO TO VESPASIAN

been killed by guards loyal to himself induced Galba to leave the palace
in order to give thanks to the gods on the Capitol. As he and his
entourage crossed the Forum, it became clear that their hopes were in
vain. A small number of praetorians — considerably fewer than those
who subsequently claimed the credit — attacked the party. Galba was
killed in the Forum by a soldier from one of the Rhine legions. Piso died
outside the temple of Vesta, where he had taken refuge. Titus Vinius
failed to persuade the man who killed him that he was actually involved
in Otho’s conspiracy.

The Senate formally recognized Otho as the man who controlled the
imperial household and the empire at a meeting held on the same
evening. Otho was the first emperor to have seized power as a result of
open bloodshed (Claudius had executed his predecessor’s assassins). He
also soon realized that he was faced with the candidature of a rival
emperor on the Rhine. There was an exchange of correspondence with
the usurper, and Otho suggested that Vitellius take Vinius’ place as his
prospective father-in-law. A senatorial embassy was sent to persuade
Vitellius to abandon his claim, but it soon became clear that he was nota
free agent, and that the Rhine armies would not countenance a peaceful
resolution to the conflict.

Nevertheless Otho’s regime was popular. He already had the support
of the praetorians, and of their officers. For all that he had virtually been
Galba’s expected successor, he publicly dissociated himself from that
unpopular emperor, and instead emphasized his association with Nero:
Galba’s freedman Icelus and his appointee as praetorian prefect, Corne-
lius Laco, were both executed. Statues of Nero and Poppaea were
restored, and the emperor was acclaimed by the urban plebs as ‘Nero
Otho’. Any negative features of Nero’s last years (when Otho was in
Spain) were blamed on the unfortunate Tigellinus, whom Otho now
executed. The disappearance of Vinius was a bonus; not only could
unpopular decisions taken by Galba be ascribed to him, but Otho was
freed from his promise to marry Vinius’ daughter. Instead, he proposed
to strengthen his claim to be the legitimate paterfamilias of the imperial
household by marrying Nero’s widow, Statilia Messallina. By represent-
ing himself as Nero’s successor, and copying his liberality, Otho won the
support of the urban population; and he did his best to win supporters
among the Senate, not just by inviting senators to dinner at the palace
(much to their discomfort when on one occasion the praetorians
suspected them of plotting against their emperor), but also by appoint-
ing several additional suffect consuls, including Verginius Rufus. Marius
Celsus, designated to a suffect consulship for the second half of the year
by Galba, was confirmed in it by Otho. Otho himself was formally
elected consul, together with his elder brother, Lucius, on 26 January.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 69-70 269

Vespasian’s elder brother, Flavius Sabinus, was re-appointed to the
urban prefecture he had held under Nero.

Like other emperors, Otho made the most of news of military success.
The defeat of a Sarmatian raiding party by the legate of Moesia, M.
Aponius Saturninus, in February not only gave Otho some of the
military prestige which he had hitherto lacked, but also enabled him to
tie both the governor and one of his legionary legates, Aurelius Fulvus
(grandfather of the emperor Antoninus Pius), to him by bestowing
military honours. The governor of Pannonia, L. Tampius Flavianus,
was honoured by being given Galba’s place among the Arval Brethren;
although related to Vitellius, he was to remain loyal to Otho. In any case,
most provincial governors had no qualms about recognizing Galba’s
murderer. Even the governor of Tarraconensis, Cluvius Rufus, at first
recognized Otho as emperor. So did the eastern armies: Antioch in Syria
minted coins with his image and title. The gold coins issued in Otho’s
name and proclaiming ‘peace throughout the world’ were perhaps
optimistic, but not absurdly so.? Only the German and British legions
refused to take the oath. (The situation in Britain was confused; the
governor Trebellius Maximus seems to have lost control, and fled to
Vitellius; but the legionary legates also provided Vitellius with vexilla-
tiones of 8,000 men.)

Otho’s coup was irrelevant to the plans of Vitellius, Valens and
Caecina. Their rebellion had been as much against Galba’s intimates as
against Galba himself. For Vitellius to be a legitimate emperor — and he
made no claim to be Axgustus until he had won the approval of the Senate
and people — those who ruled in Rome had to be removed, and the Rhine
legions had the power to do this. The historical narrative of the year 69
gives the impression that it was the support of the armies that gave
legitimacy to a candidate for imperial office; but that was not the whole
story. Otho’s failure shows that an emperor had to have control over his
armies; but Vitellius’ failure shows that military power alone was not
enough to maintain control over the empire. While Caecina and Valens
prepared to march on Italy with the greater part of the upper and lower
Rhine armies, Vitellius proved to be markedly unsuccessful in winning
support outside the western provinces. More particularly, there is little
evidence that he was ever accepted by the client kings, freedmen and
procurators of the domus Caesaris.

The two Rhine armies had probably not heard of Otho’s accession
when they set off to cross into Italy as soon as the Alpine passes were
clear of snow, Caecina through Switzerland and across the Great St
Bernard, Valens through central Gaul and then across the Mont

7 Otho’s coin issues: PAX ORBIS TERRARVM, MW 32; Otho recognized at Antioch, MW 77.
For Sabinus: Wallace 1987 (c 407).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

270 6. NERO TO VESPASIAN

Genévre. Later historians following pro-Flavian sources give a highly
coloured account of the havoc the two armies caused along their route.
In January, the Twenty-first Legion, based at Vindonissa, was involved
in a regular battle against the civitas of the Helvetii, who had apparently
arrested one of Vitellius’ messengers on his way to the Danube to seek
support from L. Tampius Flavianus. The Helvetians surrendered to
Caecina when he arrived before their capital of Aventicum in early
February. Tacitus’ account of the progress of Valens’ army through
Gaul is similarly coloured by anti-Vitellian propaganda, and stresses the
violence of the troops against the Gallic population — particularly the
destruction of Vienne, for having supported Vindex — and against each
other. And if we are to believe our sources, when Vitellius left the
Rhineland in March with a third army, he did nothing but feast for the
whole length of his journey.

Otho acted immediately and, as far as one can judge, rationally. It was
not to be expected that an army would be able to cross the Alps until
March or April (he could not predict the unusually early spring that
year). Loyal legions from the Balkans could be marshalled in northern
Italy well before Vitellius’ main armies arrived, so long as the area was
kept under the government’s control. In winter, the only weak point on
Italy’s north-western border was the Via Domitia, the coastal road
between the Ligurian Alps and the sea. A number of units commanded
by officers who had backed Otho’s coup (but who quarrelled amongst
themselves) reached this sector by early February. The government was
assisted by its command of the sea; when the governor of Corsica,
Decimus Picarius, came out prematurely on Vitellius’ side, he was soon
killed. The legate of the Maritime Alps, Marius Maturus, also joined
Vitellius before Valens’ army was near enough to protect his province
from the Othonians (among those who lost their lives at the hands of
plundering Othonian soldiers was Agricola’s mother). A cavalry force
(including a unit of Treverans under Iulius Classicus, the later rebel
leader) was sent south, but failed to dislodge Otho’s troops.

The success of Otho’s soldiers in Liguria prevented a quick dash by
Valens’ cavalry towards Rome along the Etrurian coast. What Otho
cannot have foreseen was that Caecina would be able to take advantage
of an early warm spell to cross the Great St Bernard with a force of about
18,000 troops, and establish himself in north-western Italy by the
beginning of March. He advanced as far as Cremona without encounter-
ing significant opposition.

The fact that a rebel army had been allowed to enter Italy before the
arrival of the loyal legions from the Danube was to mean that Otho had
already lost. Nevertheless the officers he had sent to hold northern Italy
managed to inflict a series of reverses on Caecina. A force based at

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 69-70 271

Verona under Annius Gallus, largely made up of three praetorian
cohorts, and one based at Placentia under Vestricius Spurinna, consist-
ing of Nero’s /egio I_Adiutrix and two praetorian cohorts, forced Caecina
back to Cremona. On 14 March Otho himself left Rome with all available
forces (and with all those senators whom he could not trust; they were
billeted in Mutina (Modena) for the duration of the campaign, where he
could keep an eye on them). His troops (perhaps 15,000 men) were still
outnumbered by Caecina. Early in April, Caecina, having heard that
Valens’ army had now also reached Italy, decided to try to deal with the
Othonians before his colleague and competitor could assist, and share
the glory. An attempt to lure the imperial army, under the command of
Suetonius Paulinus and Marius Celsus, into an ambush at a place called
Ad Castores about twelve Roman miles east of Cremona on the Via
Postumia, resulted in another defeat for Caecina.

With Valens’ arrival at Cremona, the advantage held by the Vitellian
forces was, for the moment, overwhelming. But the emperor was already
beginning to receive the reinforcements he had summoned from
Pannonia; it would be another month before the Moesian legions were
there in strength, but the main force of one of the Pannonian legions (the
Twelfth) reached the Othonians a few days after Ad Castores, and the
two others (the Seventh Ga/biana and the Fourteenth) had already
crossed into Italy. From a purely military perspective, it would have
been in Otho’s interest to put off a battle for a couple of weeks; that was
what Suetonius Paulinus, Marius Celsus and Annius Gallus are reported
as having proposed to the emperor’s consilium. But the ultimate decision
was the emperor’s, and it had to be taken on political as well as military
grounds. Because of their numerical superiority, the Vitellians had the
option of detaching part of their army to cross the Po and march on the
capital. Otho had no other troops between the Apennines and Rome. All
Vitellius’ supporters had to be prevented from moving south, and the
only way to do that was to fight a battle immediately.

The battle, known as the ‘First Battle of Cremona’ or ‘Bedriacum’,
took place on 14 April. The imperial army had the advantage of surprise,
and gained some initial successes; but they were tired out by a 20-
kilometre march to the battlefield, and the terrain — thick with vineyards
and watercourses — was not to the advantage of the attackers. The
Vitellians’ greater military experience, as well as their numerical super-
iority, decided the battle. Needless to say, the emperor’s troops believed
that they had been betrayed by some, or most, of their officers. Suetonius
Paulinus immediately decamped to beg pardon from Vitellius at Lyons.
On the day after the battle, Marius Celsus, Salvius Titianus and the other
officers surrendered on behalf of their troops.

Otho had awaited the outcome of the battle at Brixellum, 20 km away

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

272 6. NERO TO VESPASIAN

on the south bank of the Po. He had the option of holding off the
Vitellian army for a few more days, in the hope that the two other
Pannonian legions would reach him, and that they would fight for him.
That was unlikely: their colleagues in the Twelfth Legion were part of
the army that had been defeated, and the emperor had to assume that the
war was over. After making those arrangements that antiquity expected
of a good monarch to protect his supporters from the vengeance of
Vitellius — including kind words for his nephew, Salvius Cocceianus,
whose relationship to Otho was not to prove fatal until the reign of
Domitian — he killed himself on the morning of 16 April. He was not able
to foresee that his death only freed Rome from the horrors of further
bloodshed for some months; it was applauded as a brave act, then and
later.

After the battle, Caecina and Valens both returned to Vitellius at
Lyons. There the usurper received and pardoned a number of Otho’s
officers, and heard that the Senate had bestowed imperial powers on him
on 19 April. Vitellius accepted the grant of imperium, but did not see
himself as a ‘Caesar’, and for the time being even rejected the title
‘Augustus’. A formal senatorial delegation met him at Pavia in mid-May.
Vitellius spent some time in northern Italy visiting the battlefield at
Cremona and attending gladiatorial games celebrating the establishment
of the new order given by Caecina at Cremona and Valens at Bologna.
InJune, Vitellius and his considerable army — perhaps 60,000 soldiers —
entered Rome, to the great inconvenience of its residents.

Despite the military victory of his armies and his formal recognition
by the Senate, Vitellius’ position was weaker than any emperor’s had
been on his accession. He had ensured that the legions which had
remained loyal to the government of Otho were dispersed as widely as
possible: the Fourteenth was returned to Britain, Nero’s First Adiutrix
was sent to Spain, the Seventh, Eleventh and Twelfth were sent back to
Pannonia, Dalmatia and Moesia, and the Thirteenth was kept in
northern Italy in the insulting position of helping build the amphi-
theatres required for Valens’ and Caecina’s shows. These legions were
not reconciled to the usurper. They would be ready to support any
candidate who presented himself instead of Vitellius. Suetonius states
that he was told, presumably by his father (who took part in these
events), that some soldiers of the Seventh Claudia were already canvass-
ing Vespasian’s candidacy. A more likely candidate would have been
Galba’s nephew Cornelius Dolabella, who unwisely returned to Rome
after Otho’s death in a vain attempt to rally Vitellius’ opponents. He was
arrested and executed by the urban prefect, Vespasian’s brother Flavius
Sabinus.

Vitellius’ coins show his awareness of the deep split between those
soldiers who supported and those who opposed him. A Spanish as

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 69-70 273

proclaims the ‘Unity of the Armies’ (in the plural). A denarius that may
have been minted for the Rhine armies before Vitellius was recognized
by the Senate asserts that both the armies (obverse) and the praetorians
(reverse) were loyal; both sides of the coin show a ceremonial pair of
hands, clasped in friendship. The praetorians had loyally supported their
emperor, and Vitellius thought it wise to discharge considerable
numbers (those who were provided with plots of land in the Maritime
Alps and near Aquileia were swift to join the Flavian cause in the
autumn) and replace them with soldiers from the Rhine legions. He tried
to advertise the support of other armies, e.g. with coins celebrating
Vespasian’s subjugation of Judaea.

Vitellius not only failed to reconcile the troops who had opposed him,
but also failed to win popularity in other quarters. Coins advertising the
imperial corn supply show that he was aware of the need for support
from the plebs; and on the day after his arrival at Rome, he accepted the
title ‘Augustus’ in response to popular demand (early coins describe him
as ‘Germanicus’, with the praenomen ‘imperator’). He accepted the title
‘perpetual consul’ which had been rejected by Nero. But he failed, or
refused, to recognize the importance of being head of the domus Caesaris,
and did not call himself ‘Caesar’ until the very last days of his reign.
Instead, he emphasized the security which his new dynasty provided by
the existence of a son and a daughter. His children appear on gold coins
from Rome; the daughter was betrothed to Decimus Valerius Asiaticus,
who as legate of Gallia Belgica had been an early supporter of Vitellius.
Although only of praetorian rank, he was the son of the Asiaticus who
had been mentioned as an imperial candidate in a.p. 41, and forced to
commit suicide by Messallina in 47. The alliance with Asiaticus was
perhaps both an attempt to reconcile those communities in Gaul that had
backed Vindex, suchas Asiaticus’ origo Vienne, and to win the support of
those families that had been associated with Vitellius’ father during the
early years of Claudius. Other aurei struck by Vitellius at Rome represent
the censor. Another of his father’s associates, Vespasian’s elder brother
Flavius Sabinus (cos. suff. ¢. 45), was confirmed in the position of
praefectus urbi restored to him by Otho. His son was assigned a
consulship. But neither Asiaticus nor Sabinus were able to give Vitellius
much support when the army commanders appointed during Nero’s
reign came up with an alternative. Even Vitellius’ own mother was
sceptical of Vitellius’ chances of establishing a new dynasty: she is
reported to have said that the son she gave birth to was called Aulus, not
Germanicus.8

8 Vitellius’ coin issues: IMP. GERMANICVS, Sutherland 1987 (B 358) chs. 47-9; CONSENSVS
EXERCITVVMS.C.; FIDES EXERCITVVM/ PRAETORIANOR VM; ANNONA AVG. S.C.,
MW 36-9; LIBERI IMP. GERM. AVG., MW 80; L. VITELLIVS COS Ili CENSOR, MW 82 (we

may note that Josephus pretends to know nothing of these children: BJ 1v.10.3(596)). Consul
perpetuus, ILS 242 = MW 81.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

274 6. NERO TO VESPASIAN

Foremost amongst the provincial commanders was C. Licinius
Mucianus, legate of Syria. Mucianus preferred literature to soldiering,
and did not propose to put forward his own candidature. Although we
do not have enough information about his family to know how
‘aristocratic’ he was, his own career — governor of Lycia and Pamphylia
in 57; consul towards the end of Nero’s reign — gave him the authority to
recommend a name to the Roman establishment. And those officers
whose careers had been advanced by Corbulo before his execution in
A.D. 66 now looked to him to protect their interests against their fellow-
officers in the Rhine legions, who were being given swift promotion by
Vitellius. Vespasian, like Mucianus, had loyally served Nero in his last
years; he had had much military experience, and distinction; and he also
had two adult sons, ensuring that there would be someone to succeed
him. Between them the two legates commanded six legions, enough at
least to challenge the rebellious Rhine armies. Vespasian was prepared to
take the initiative. Despite initial disagreements of the kind only to be
expected when Syria and its army had been divided between the two of
them by Nero in the spring of 67, Mucianus was prepared to back him.

Vespasian’s son Titus was instrumental in arranging Mucianus’
support for his father. At the end of 68, he had left Palestine for Rome to
submit himself as a candidate for the quaestorship; Galba had been his
father’s superior at Strasbourg in A.D. 41-3, when Titus had been a child,
and Titus was certain that he would favour him. But at Corinth he heard
both of Galba’s assassination, and of Vitellius’ proclamation, and
decided to return to Palestine. Oracles and omens along the way
confirmed him in the view that Vitellius should be resisted. When news
of Otho’s defeat reached them, Mucianus and Vespasian were in no
doubt about their responsibility to restore legitimate government. They
informed governors, imperial procurators and legionary legates
throughout the empire of their intentions, and won the support of the
network of client kings in the eastern Mediterranean. Minor military
operations against the Jewish rebels in Palestine in June had left
Vespasian in control of most of the province except Jerusalem and three
other strongholds; most of the Judaean army was free for operations
elsewhere.

By the time Vespasian was publicly proclaimed emperor, the Danube
armies were already throwing off their allegiance to Vitellius. The
process by which they were persuaded to support Vespasian rather than
a more legitimate Galban successor is unclear. Personal animosities
between officers played their part; in Moesia, discipline collapsed when
the governor, Marcus Aponius Saturninus, tried to kill the legate of the
Seventh Claudia, alleging treason. Another Moesian legion, the Third
Gallica, had recently been transferred from Syria. As soon as it heard that

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 69-70 275

the other Syrian legions were supporting Vespasian, it too expressed its
support for his candidature. Its legate, Titus Aurelius Fulvus from
Nimes, rose high in Vespasian’s service. He was to be honoured with a
first consulship ¢. 70; he was to be consul again as the emperor
Domitian’s colleague in 85, and his grandson Antoninus Pius was
himself to hold the imperial office. By contrast, no rewards accrued to
Antonius Primus, still in command of Galba’s Seventh Legion, and loyal
to his and Otho’s memory. His legion, and the other Pannonian legion,
the Thirteenth, that had been forced to assist Caecina and Valens’ victory
games in Cremona and Bologna, declared for the Flavians, but only
because that allowed them to re-open hostilities against Vitellius. They
accused the governor of Pannonia, M. Tampius Flavianus, of loyalty to
Vitellius — he was a distant relative, but as we have seen had been
honoured by Otho. Flavianus initially abandoned his office, but returned
at the request of the procurator Cornelius Fuscus. Fuscus had been
appointed to the post by Galba; he was to be another important
supporter of the new dynasty.°

The first official formally to proclaim Vespasian was in fact the prefect
of Egypt, Tiberius Iulius Alexander. Son of Alexander ‘the Alabarch’, a
procurator of the younger Antonia, he was the nephew of the Jewish
philosopher Philo, and his deceased brother had been the son-in-law of
King Iulius (commonly but incorrectly ‘Herod’) Agrippa I. Not surpris-
ingly, he had done well during the early years of Claudius; from a.p. 46
to 48 he was procuratorial governor of Judaea. After some quiet years
probably to be explained by the primacy of Agrippina (when Vespasian,
too, had been in disgrace) his experience and connexions throughout the
eastern Mediterranean made him a suitable choice as an officer on
Corbulo’s staff in 63 (probably praefectus castrorum, in charge of the
commissariat). In 66 he was appointed prefect of Egypt. The prefect of
Egypt was the only Roman provincial governor who was not shadowed
by an imperial procurator; this made it easier for him to declare his
support for anew emperor. The acclamation of Vespasian at Alexandria
on 1 July (two days before Vespasian’s own army followed suit at
Caesarea) was enthusiastically received; Alexandria had only restricted
corporate rights as a city, and will have hoped that support for a
successful pretender would be rewarded by the privileges appropriate
for the second greatest city in the Mediterranean world. Vespasian was
to disappoint any such expectations; he had no wish to represent himself
as beholden to the Greek East.!0

9 For Vespasian’s supporters, see Townend 1961 (c 404); Nicols 1978 (c 381); Gallivan 1981 (c
347); Jones 1984 (c 360); Wallace 1987 (c 407). See also following note.

10 Tiberius lulius Alexander: Turner 1954 (Cc 405); Burr 1955 (C 336); Sullivan 1985 (& 1224)
300-5. Vespasian’s acclamation at Alexandria: MW 41 = CPJ, 418a. Mucianus: Syme 1977 (c 399).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

276. 6. NERO TO VESPASIAN

In mid-July, Vespasian and Mucianus held a conference at Berytus
(Beirut) to plan their campaign. Agrippa, and representatives of other
eastern clients of the Julio-Claudians such as Antiochus of Commagene,
also attended. The Judaean countryside had been pacified; the glory of
conquering the centre of the rebellion, Jerusalem, could safely be left to
Titus, supported by Alexander as his praefectus castrorum. Titus needed an
experienced counsellor, and it was perhaps politic to prevent Alexander
from becoming too popular in his home town. Mucianus would proceed
to the Balkans with an army consisting of one full legion and 13,000 men
in vexillationes from seven others. Ships were organized for the crossing
of the Bosphorus, and later events suggest that the Flavians approached
the prefects of both Italian fleets with a view to winning their support for
ferrying Mucianus’ army from Dyrrhachium to Brundisium. Whether
the intention was to invade Italy from the south or the north (or both),
Vespasian cannot have expected any major military operations in Italy
before the spring of the next year. In the mean time, it would be made
clear to Vitellius and his supporters that no one could be emperor with
the support of the Rhine legions alone. The supplies of corn from Egypt,
upon which Rome depended, were cut off. Vespasian himself was to
await the outcome of events at Alexandria.

What the plan decided upon at Berytus actually was cannot be known
because by the time Mucianus reached the Balkans two months later, he
found that the Danubian legions had already begun their own war
against Vitellius under the command of Antonius Primus. To do that
they had left the Danube frontier almost unprotected against the
continuing Sarmatian pressure, and Mucianus was forced to turn north
to repulse a serious invasion. Leaving his army behind, he hurried on
after the Danube legions, to reach Italy in December. His haste suggests
that Primus’ advance into Italy at the beginning of September was by no
means in accordance with the plans drawn up at Berytus. Tacitus says
that Primus ignored Vespasian’s written instructions to hold back at
Aquileia. Vespasian and Mucianus were not pleased at Primus’ victories,
and he had to spend the rest of his days in peaceful retirement in his home
town of Tolosa. On reaching northern Italy, Primus had shown where
his loyalty lay: at Padua, he called for the busts of Galba to be restored. It
is also remarkable that no coins bearing Vespasianic legends can be
assigned to his army; serious objections have been raised to the view that
a series of coins bearing Galba’s portrait and referring to him as P[afer]
P[atriae] were issued posthumously, perhaps at Lyons, but if such coins
were indeed struck after Galba’s death, it would be tempting to associate
them with the pay given to Primus’ soldiers.!!

From Vitellius’ point of view, the immediate effect of Primus’ action

11 On the so-called ‘posthumous’ coins of Galba, see Kraay 1956 (B 332).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 69-70 277

was to cut Italy off from any further reinforcements from the British and
Rhine armies. It also made it clear to some of Vitellius’ own supporters
that there was now no chance that he would be accepted as a legitimate
emperor. In September, Caecina and Valens entered upon the suffect
consulship which was their reward for their victory. In response to
Primus’ invasion, Caecina took the entire army north (the praetorians,
including the best of the soldiers who had come from the Rhine, were left
behind; so was Valens, who was ill). He left it at Bologna, and then went
to Ravenna to discuss with the prefect of the Adriatic fleet, Sextus
Caecilius Bassus, the best way of solving the crisis without bloodshed.
(Bassus was disappointed with Vitellius because he had hoped for
promotion to praetorian prefect.) Bassus had already been in touch with
an imperial freedman, Hormus, acting for Vespasian.

While military and civilian officers were trying to avoid bloodshed,
that was exactly what the armies were looking for. Primus’ legions,
stationed at Verona, rioted against the two provincial governors, and
both Tampius Flavianus and Aponius Saturninus were expelled from the
camp. Meanwhile at Bologna, Caecina tried to remove Vitellius’ por-
traits, but could make no headway in persuading his legions to accept
Vespasian as emperor. He fled to Bassus, who had brought his sailors
over to the Flavians without difficulty. Two legionary tribunes, Fabius
Fabullus and Cassius Longus, took over command of the Vitellian army
until Valens was to arrive.

Primus saw that he should force a battle now, before Valens could
restore the Vitellians’ morale. He advanced on the strongly pro-Vitellian
city of Cremona, forcing the Vitellians to try to reach it first. Battle was
joined to the east of the city in the late afternoon of 24 October, and
lasted through the night; ancient sources give the expected vivid
accounts of the horrors of this ‘Second Battle of Cremona’. There were
said to be 50,000 dead, and worse than the actual battle was the
destruction of Cremona by the victorious Flavians which followed; the
fire, started by the Thirteenth Legion in revenge for the insulting way it
had been forced to help build an amphitheatre for Valens’ games after the
first battle, was said to have lasted for four days.

Caecina’s defection showed that Vitellius could no longer trust some
of his own officers. The praetorian prefect, Publius Sabinus, had to be
replaced before the major part of what remained of the Vitellian army,
fourteen praetorian cohorts, moved north along the Via Flaminia in
support of Valens, who no longer had an army. Meanwhile Cornelius
Fuscus had occupied Rimini on behalf of the Flavians, and the Vitellian
army fell back, ultimately taking up a position at Narnia, about 100 km
north of Rome. Valens himself travelled through northern Italy to Gallia
Narbonensis, hoping to raise another army on the Rhine; but Valerius

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

278 6. NERO TO VESPASIAN

Paulinus, the procurator— who, like many of the imperial procurators of
whom we know, gave immediate support to Vespasian’s bid for the
empire — arrested him and sent him to Primus, who had him executed.

Late in November, a centurion of the fleet at Misenum was instrumen-
tal in effecting the fleet’s transfer of loyalty to Vespasian. But here
Vitellius had some success: he sent his brother Lucius to Campania with
a few praetorian cohorts, and on 18 December — during the Saturnalia —
Lucius’ troops managed to recapture Terracina from the marines. But
Lucius’ actions came too late to save his brother: the cohorts at Narnia
had surrendered one or two days before.

Vitellius’ failure to bring about a swift end to the civil war after the
second battle of Cremona has been unfavourably compared to Otho’s
suicide after the first. His indecision may be explained as due to
uncertainty as to the extent to which Primus and his army were actually
acting in support of Vespasian. Throughout the autumn, Vespasian’s
brother, the urban prefect Flavius Sabinus, had been available as a
mediator; Vitellius seems to have been guaranteed his life, and the
opportunity to retire to Campania. But Sabinus, too, was unclear about
whether Primus would accept his authority (Vespasian’s twenty-year-
old younger son Domitian was not prepared to leave Rome in the
company of Primus’ messengers). Only when Mucianus himself had
reached northern Italy could Sabinus and Vitellius act publicly. But the
soldiers from the Rhine legions whom Vitellius had promoted to his
praetorian guard had too much to lose to accept his abdication. When a
formal contio was held in the Forum on 18 December to announce the
surrender of Vitellius’ imperium, those present shouted their opposition.
An attempt to hand his dagger over to the consul, Caecilius Simplex, as a
sign that he was resigning the imperial office, was rejected. Vitellius had
to return to the palace while Sabinus (who, as praefectus urbi, was
commander of the urban cohorts) and Domitian retired to the Capitol,
assuming that they would be safe there until Vitellius regained control of
his supporters.

While these negotiations had been in progress, Primus was in no hurry
to rescue Vespasian’s relatives in Rome. Independent action was taken
by a cavalry unit commanded by Petillius Cerialis, described as a close
relative of Vespasian; he was almost certainly the husband of Vespasian’s
daughter Domitilla (now deceased). Cerialis’ attempt to break through
the Vitellian defences on the northern outskirts of Rome was repulsed,
and in revenge Vitellius’ soldiers turned against Sabinus. It appears that
some of the Flavian supporters set fire to buildings on the slope of the
Capitol in order to protect themselves: the fire spread and engulfed the
principal temple of Rome. Several Flavian supporters were killed.
Sabinus himself was captured and brought before Vitellius, whose

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 69-70 279

attempts to save his life failed. Domitian escaped in the garb of a priest of
Isis, together with his cousin, Sabinus’ son T. Flavius Clemens (consul in
A.D. 95 aS Domitian’s colleague).'2

When he heard of Cerialis’ failure to enter Rome and of the
destruction of the Capitol, Antonius Primus could no longer hold back
his army. He may also have calculated that the death of Sabinus would
enable him to present a candidate of his own choice to the Senate. Tacitus
suggests that in the first days or weeks after the occupation of Rome, he
tried and failed to persuade Licinius Crassus Scribonianus to become his
own puppet emperor. As brother of the Piso adopted by Galba, and the
Cn. Pompeius Magnus married to Claudius’ daughter Antonia, Crassus
had a stronger connexion with the household of Caesar than Vespasian.
Primus entered the city on 20 December (possibly 21), and encountered
considerable resistance. Vitellius attempted to flee the city — he may have
heard of his brother’s successes in Campania — but his praetorians would
not let him go. He was discovered hiding in the deserted palace, dragged
through the Forum by a mob of soldiers and civilians, and put to death.

Mucianus succeeded in reaching Rome within a few days of Primus,
and acted swiftly to isolate him. Even before his arrival, Mucianus had
sent written instructions to the Senate to ensure that it was Vespasian
who was duly recognized as Caesar and Augustus, and that the people
passed a law voting him all the legal powers that earlier emperors had
had (one of the two bronze tablets bearing the text of this /ex de Imperio
Vespasiani still exists, and grammatical peculiarities suggest — the haste
with which Mucianus drafted it).!3 It is not surprising that individual
senators started to ask questions about just who it was who represented
the new emperor. In January 70, with Domitian’s consent, the Senate
passed a decree honouring Galba and Piso; only later was it realized that
this did not accord at all with the wishes of Mucianus and Vespasian.
Domitian’s re-appearance as Caesar provided a point of reference. He
was duly elected as urban praetor, but with the unprecedented imperium
of a consul. Mucianus arranged for rewards for those who had been a
party to Vespasian’s own plans. He himself was nominated to a second
suffect consulship in A.D. 70, together with Petillius Cerialis; the client-
kings who had supported Vespasian were honoured; and the freedman
Hormus, instrumental in negotiations regarding the fleet, was granted
equestrian status. But Antonius Primus, the man who had actually
defeated Vitellius, was eased out of power and never again played a
political role. For Vespasian’s security, Mucianus arranged for the

'2 On the fighting in Italy and Rome in a.p. 69, see Tac. Hist. 11; Suet. Dom. 1.2f. For the
destruction of the Capitol, Murison 1979 (c 378); Wellesley 1981 (c 413). On Domitian’s role,
Waters 1964 (c 410) is stil] sensible.

3 The lex de imperio. ILS 244= MW 1 = AN 293; cf. Brunt 1977 (c 335).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

280 6. NERO TO VESPASIAN

execution of those who might attract the support of Galban partisans as
candidates for the imperial office: C. Piso Galerianus (son of the
conspirator of A.D. 65), and his father-in-law Lucius Piso (cos. 57),
current proconsul of Africa. Lucius was a brother-in-law of Galba’s heir
and of Licinius Crassus Scribonianus; both were therefore related to
Augustus’ first wife Scribonia. Piso was killed by Valerius Festus, legate
of the Third Legion and a relative of Vitellius who needed to prove his
loyalty to the new regime.

Mucianus’ next problem was to defuse the rivalry between Vespa-
sian’s two sons. Titus had won military glory as his father’s legate in
Judaea (he was to remain there for the prestige of destroying Jerusalem
that summer). Domitian suspected that he would have little chance of
surviving for long if his brother ever came to the throne. One option
open to him was to win military glory himself by leading the Flavian
legions north to deal with the remaining Vitellian units in Gaul, Britain
and the Rhineland. Mucianus had already sent Petillius Cerialis to the
Rhineland, and allowed Domitian to follow (thus removing him from
Rome); later tradition had it that Domitian personally received the
surrender of the Lingones, but he seems to have been prevented from
seeing any fighting. Instead of seeking to rival the military glories of his
brother Titus and brother-in-law Cerialis, Domitian dedicated himself to
writing poetry, including epics recording the fighting on the Capitol and
his achievements in Gaul.

The failure of the Rhine legions to accept Vespasian after Vitellius’
death proved a major embarrassment to the Flavians, and to pro-Flavian
historians. The events of A.D. 69/70 in the Rhineland had to be re-written
in such a way as to avoid giving the impression that Vespasian had been
supported by Batavians and (some) Gauls, while the citizen legions and
(other) Gauls continued to constitute a ‘Vitellian’ force. In consequence,
Tacitus’ Histories describe the rebellion against Vitellius led by the
Batavian leader Civilis as though it was an uprising by provincials
against Roman rule. But Tacitus also has to admit that when the
rebellion began, it was welcome to the Flavians: he says that at first it was
only in secret that the rebel leaders expressed anti-Roman views. If
Civilis was a traitor, he was a traitor to Vitellius. In the autumn of 69, at
the behest of Antonius Primus, he took the oath to Vespasian and
besieged a Vitellian legion at Vetera (Xanten). Tacitus misleadingly
suggests that by the beginning of 70, the legions too had taken the oath
of loyalty to Vespasian. In fact, the legate of Upper Germany, Hordeo-
nius Flaccus (who had supported Civilis’ action) was killed by his troops
when he tried to administer the oath, and Vitellius’ portrait restored. A
pro-Vitellian legate, Dillius Vocula, came to the help of the soldiers at
Vetera; when the legionaries tried to evacuate the camp there and march

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 69-70 281

south in March 70, they were massacred by Civilis’ Batavians (Tacitus
emphasizes the presence of Germanic warriors from across the Rhine
among Civilis’ soldiers).

The leaders of a number of Gallic tribes also remained loyal to the
Vitellian cause. With the Flavians recognized at Rome and the arrival of
Cerialis and Domitian in Gaul in the spring of 70, their resistance could
be re-interpreted as a tribal uprising. But these men were as little Gallic
nationalists as Vindex had been. Iulius Classicus had led the Vitellian
advance as far as the Maritime Alps in early 69; the other leaders, Iulius
Tutor and Iulius Sabinus, were ‘Romans’ to such an extent that Dillius
Vocula’s legions accepted their command after the disastrous retreat
from Vetera. In the absence of any senator who might be put up as the
Vitellians’ candidate for the imperial office, Iulius Sabinus made a bid by
claiming that his grandfather had been an illegitimate son of none other
than Iulius Caesar himself. The ‘Gallic Empire’ Umperium Galliarum)
which they called for was not an empire controlled by the Gauls, but a
Roman empire in Gaul, a compromise which could be supported both by
legionaries who wished to remain loyal to Vitellius and by Civilis’
Batavians and other Gallic tribes who had fought them.

It was the absence of a plausible leader that gave the legionaries no
alternative but to accept Vespasian. Their last hope was to persuade
Cerialis himself to take up their cause; he passed their offer to make him
emperor back to Domitian. The Flavians took what measures they could
to win the loyalty of these supporters of Vitellius. Four of the Rhine
legions had to be disbanded (/, IV Macedonica, XV Primigenia, XVI),
and replaced by new ones, whose titles proclaimed their association with
the new dynasty (IV and XVI Flavia). The loyalties of the British
legions during this period are even more difficult to reconstruct (see ch.
13e). Cerialis took over command of the British army, perhaps to balance
his brother-in-law Titus’ command in the East. The military activities of
the next three years, involving the subjugation of Brigantia and the
founding of a new legionary base at York, gave the legions stationed in
Britain an opportunity to prove their loyalty to the Flavians. In Britain,
as in the Rhineland, the legionaries’ conditions were improved by the
construction of more permanent, stone camps, such as the one at
Caerleon. The story of their war against Civilis was re-written to make it
seem that they had always been loyal to Rome, fighting German
barbarians and Celtic and Batavian traitors. Unlike Galba, Otho or
Vitellius, the Flavians managed to win the support even of those who
had fought against them. The coinage broadcast not just military victory
over Judaea and the security represented by the new emperor’s two sons,
but the ‘Revival of Rome’, Peace, Liberty, and concord between
emperor and Senate. As censors (A.D. 72~4), Vespasian and Titus freed

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

282 6. NERO TO VESPASIAN

the Roman people from the moral stain, and from some of the memories,
of civil strife. The account of Vespasian’s reign as the recognized
successor of the Julio-Claudians is to be found in another volume.
Mucianus enjoyed a third consulship in a.p. 72, and then spent his
retirement writing books.!*

4 Civilis: Urban 1985 (c 406). Classicus’ coins include the legends ADSERTOR LIBERTATIS,
LEGION XV PRIM and CONCORDIA: FIDES may be an appeal for continued loyalty to the
Vitellian cause. Cf. Zehnacker 1987 (B 364). Tacitus’ admission that the rebels were only ‘separatists’
in secret: Hist. 111.14. Brigancia: Birley 1973 (£529), Hanson and Campbell 1986 (£ 544). Vespasian’s
coin issues: ROMA RESVRGENS, PAX P. ROMANI, LIBERTAS RESTITVTA, AETERNI-
TAS P.R., CONCORDIA SENATVI — MW 42-6; 90; 254.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER7

THE IMPERIAL COURT

ANDREW WALLACE-HADRILL

I. INTRODUCTION

If the powers of Augustus and his successors were monarchical, the most
important arena where those powers were exercised was the court. Both
as an institution and as a word, the court wasalien to the Republic. Auda,
a direct derivative of the Greek au/e, the standard term in the hellenistic
world for the courts of oriental and Greek kings, is almost unknown to
republican literature (including Livy); but rapidly establishes itself under
the early Empire (notably in the writings of Seneca under Nero) to refer
both to the physical location of imperial power and to the type of power,
the personnel, and the perilous way of life that were associated with it.!
New though the phenomenon was to the Romans, they were well aware
that what they now experienced was an old feature of monarchical
societies. ‘Reflect,’ observed the emperor Marcus Aurelius in his
Meditations, ‘how all the life today is a repetition of the past... the whole
court circle of Hadrian for example, or the court of Antoninus, or the
courts of Philip, Alexander and Croesus. The performance is always the
same; it is only the actors who change.’2
The historical and biographical sources recognize the role of the
Julio-Claudian court. Stories told about Vespasian’s early career encap-
sulate assumptions about how court life worked. His success under
Claudius was ascribed to the influence of the freedman Narcissus; he also
had a mistress, Caenis, among the imperial freedwomen. His son, Titus,
was brought up at court (é# au/a) with Britannicus. The fall of Narcissus
and the rise of Agrippina meant his political eclipse. Nevertheless, he
remained in the court circle, and was taken by Nero to Greece among the
comites. But his unconcealed lack of enthusiasm for singing brought him
into bad odour, and he was banned not only from the inner circle
(contubernium) but even from the general audience (publica salutatio). He
' See TLL 1.1457-8, s.v. aula H1.3.c. Cic. Fam. xv.4.6 (of the court of Ariobarzanes) is apparently
the only republican occurrence. Similarly used of foreign courts by Augustan and later writers, e.g.
Virg. 11.304, Val. Max. vit.1.2; of court life in contexts applicable to Rome first in Seneca Ira 11.3 3.2,
Trang. v1.2; of Nero’s court, [Seneca] Octavia 285 etc.; then regularly of the imperial court in Martial,

Statius, Tacitus, Suetonius and later.
2 Med. 10.27. On the views of Marcus, Brunt 1974 (B 19).

283

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

284 7. THE IMPERIAL COURT

learnt of his disgrace from one of the freedmen who controlled
admissions (ex officio admissionis), whose treatment of him was so
acrimonious that he was scarcely rescued by the intervention of other
courtiers. We meet here a string of assumptions that run through the
historical accounts of the Julio-Claudian and later periods: the fragility
of political success and its dependence on imperial favour; the role of
freedmen and members of the imperial family as mediators of favour; the
emergence of subordinate personnel who help to define access to and
exclusion from the court; and the intertwining of political and social life
at court, and the consequent importance of imperial tastes.

The work of the last generation of historians has represented a large
step towards a better understanding of the early imperial court. Several
major studies have extended our detailed knowledge of the freedmen
personnel,* the equestrian amici principis, and of links among the
senatorial elite.6 Above all, study of contacts between emperors and their
subjects, the decision-making process and the distribution of resources
and patronage, show us the network of imperial personnel in operation
and reveal something of the structures within which they operate.”

But in spite of these advances, the court remains partly veiled from our
sight. Historiographically it leads a sort of twilight existence. This is true
both of the ancient sources and modern scholarship. The difficulties that
obstruct the historian were articulated by Cassius Dio: monarchical rule
involved a retreat of political life and the decision-making process from
open places (the Senate and Forum) into privacy. Dubious official
announcements and hearsay represent the only access to what was going
on.8 Tacitus reacts to this problem by the tactic of irony.? Rather than
focus on the court on the basis of suspect information, he directs his
attention to public places in the style of his republican predecessors: he
thereby underlines not merely the political impotence of the Senate, but
the impotence of the historian, who can only approach the true locus of
power indirectly. The majority of our direct information about the
workings of the Julio-Claudian court is anecdotal: this is true not only of
the biographies of Suetonius, but of the numerous reminiscences of
contemporaries, Seneca in his philosophical dialogues, the elder Pliny in
his Natural Histories, or the Discourses of the ex-slave philosopher
Epictetus preserved by Arrian. The tendency to anecdote is not a

3 Slightly differing versions in: Suet. Vesp. 3-4 and 14; Tit. 2; Tac. Aan. xvi.5; Dio Lxx1.11; ef.
Gascou 1984 (B $9) 323-6.

4 Chantraine 1967 (p 9); Weaver 1972 (D 22); Boulvert 1970 (D 6) and 1974 (D 7).

5 Pflaum 1960-1 (D 59); cf. Brunt 1983 (D 26).

© Syme’s prosopographical work is informed by tacit understanding of the nature of the imperial
court; fora rare statement, Syme 1939 (A 93) 385-

7 Millar 1977 (A 59) is basic; also Crook 1955 (D 10) and Saller 1982 (F 59).

8 Dio Litt.19. 9 Syme 1958 (B 176) 206 and passim; cf. Ginsburg 1981 (B 61).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACCESS AND RITUAL 285

personal weakness of our sources, but a structural consequence of the
retreat of politics behind closed doors.!°

Modern historians have reacted to the problem differently. Suspicious
of anecdote, and disinclined to see history as made by feminine schemes
and palace plots,'! we have moved away from study of the Principate as a
political system to study of administrative systems and hierarchies. The
temptation has not always been resisted to substitute modern bureaucra-
tic structures for the unfamiliar structures of a court society.!2 The world
of kings and courts is one of which the present age has lost sight, and it
requires an effort of historical imagination to take its structures ser-
iously.!3 In consequence, this chapter represents a sketch not only of
what we have learnt, but of what we stand in danger of forgetting.'4 In
discussing the nascent court of the Julio-Claudian period, it will be
necessary to generalize more broadly about the function of the court in
the structure of imperial power.

II. ACCESS AND RITUAL: COURT SOCIETY

The court and its membership had no ‘official’ definition, for this was a
social not a legal institution, private in its composition though public in
its importance. The contrast with the Senate is significant: membership
of that body was a legal status, only open to certain social categories, age
groups, and one sex, and Augustus at an early stage took measures
further to define eligibility and to formalize procedures and conduct of
business.!5 The court remained in its nature undefined: membership was
constituted by proximity to the emperor, and only social ritual could
distinguish degrees of proximity. At the negative extreme, the renounce-
ment of amicitia was a formal token of imperial displeasure and expulsion
from court; but the amicitia enjoyed by those who had not fallen from
grace was fluid and imprecise (a point obscured by attempts to catalogue
the amici principis, as if they were officials with a rank).!© Many had access
to the ax/a; far fewer were admitted to the private chamber, the cubiculum
principis..7 Nor did the court have any official or public function. Events
of public importance took place on the Palatine from Augustus on, such
as the reception of embassies, councils of state and trials, but they did so

‘0 For criticism of use of anecdotes, see Saller 1980 (B 156).

't So explicitly Momigliano 1934 (C 377) xiii.

'2 Cf. the strictures of Brunt 1975 (£ 906), Burton 1977 (D 8), Saller 1982 (F 59) 79ff.

13. See (fora later period) the fundamental analysis of N. Elias, The Court Society (English trans. by
E. Jepbcort of Die béfische Gesellschaft, 1969) (Oxford, 1983).

4 Friedlander 1922 (A 30) 1. 33-103 remains the best discussion of the court as social
phenomenon; see also Turcan 1987 (D 20). 15 Talbert 1984 (D 77) 10ff, 137 etc.

16 On the amici, Crook 1955 (D 10) 21-30; Millar 1977 (A 9) 110-22; Demougin 1988 (D 37) 743-
51; On renuntiatio amicitiae, Rogers 1959 (D 19). 17 Tamm 1963 (F 590) 113 ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

286 7. THE IMPERIAL COURT

not as ‘court’ events, but in virtue of the personal obligations of the
emperor. By tradition, any public figure at Rome was liable to use his
house for occasions of a quasi-public nature.!8 This lack of definition
only added to the power of the court: one of the secrets of power, the
arcana imperii, was to be untramelled by rules.

Nor was its location fixed: au/a represents an abstraction, not a
description of a particular place. Under the late Empire the court was to
be peripatetic, like the courts of many medieval monarchs; at all periods
the court (but not necessarily all courtiers) moved with the emperor.!9
This does not mean that the imperial presence transformed all contexts
into the court, as when the emperor attended the Senate or the games:
these were public venues, in contrast to the private and domestic venues
of the court, even the praetorian tent on campaign.20 But despite the
string of properties across Italy already developed by Augustus, and the
fondness of the Julio-Claudians for the Bay of Naples, and specifically
Capri, it is notable that in practice the court was from the start firmly
centred on the city of Rome, and particularly the Palatine Hill.2! This too
has its echo in language. Pa/atium acquires the sense of ‘palace’ by the end
of the first century A.D. (the metaphorical usage goes back to Ovid), and
as Cassius Dio later pointed out, it was the facts of life rather than any
decree that turned pa/atium into the name for any imperial residence, no
matter where its location.” The rapid absorption of the show houses of
the republican nobility on the Palatine, already far advanced by the end
of Augustus’ reign, neatly symbolizes the absorption of their social
power.23 Augustus and his successors manipulated this symbolism with
care: the rich ritual and ‘historical’ associations of the hill of Romulus
were exploited, and the potential of the site to overlook and dominate
the public activity of the Forum and the mass meetings of the Circus
Maximus was underlined by the choice of where to build.

Suetonius’ emphasis on the modesty of Augustus’ residence may
create a false impression, engendered by the desire of a later age to
idealize the simplicity of the past.24 Contemporary reactions in the poets,
explicit in Propertius and Ovid, veiled in Virgil, register the overwhelm-
ing impression made by the novel complex of private house and public
temple (Actian Apollo), portico (adorned with Danaids) and libraries.25
The tantalizing fragments that have emerged from recent archaeological

18 Vitr. De Arch. vt.5.2; of. Millar 1977 (a 59) 18ff. 19 Millar 1977 (a $9) 28-57.
2 Veyne 1976 (F 71) 682~5 perversely identifies the whole city of Rome as court.
21 Millar 1977 (A 59) 15-28.
Ov. Met. 175, Dio L11.16.4—6; ef. RE xviii 3 (1949) 10-15 s.v. Palatium.
23 Wiseman 1987 (F 81).
24 Suet. Aug. 72. Sources are collected in Lugli 1962 (E 82) 154-61.
25 Esp. Prop. 11.31; Ov. Fast. rv.g51~4; Tr. ut.1.31-48; Pont. 1.8.17; Virg. Aen. vu.17off, cf.
Wiseman 1987 (F 81).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACCESS AND RITUAL 287

exploration give concrete documentation of the interweaving of public
and private in the area of the temple of Apollo, approached from within
Augustus’ house by a series of ramps, which is more reminiscent of a
hellenistic royal palace than a traditional Roman house.%6 This feature,
dating back to 28 B.c., was extended in the course of the reign: in 12 B.C.
the public cult of Vesta, symbolic hearthplace of the city, was incorpor-
ated within the private house of Augustus as pontifex maximus, and in
A.D. 3 after a major fire and rebuilding of the palace on public
subscription, the whole residence was declared public property. Thus
the architectural ambivalence of public and private embodies from the
first the essential ambiguity of the court as an institution, a private
household with a central role in public life, the domus of a citizen and
simultaneously the praetorium, the headquarters of a commander pro-
tected by the praetorian guard.27

The Augustan development lacked unity; it was rather a string of
separate households absorbed piecemeal, and this was still true of the
palace as Josephus describes it at the time of Gaius’ murder.28 Nero’s
vast building activities, both before and after the great fire, imposed
coherence for the first time, and eliminated the final traces of indepen-
dent houses of the aristocracy on the Palatine, such as the house of the
orator Crassus with its famous lotus trees, finally owned by Claudius’
courtier Caecina Largus.29 Even without taking into account Nero’s
extension of his Golden House onto the Esquiline, we may be struck, as
were contemporaries, by the staggering extent of the palatial complex.3°
Covering some 10 hectares, it exceeded the palace of Attalus at
Pergamum by a factor of 30, though indeed if the palaces of Alexandria
or Antioch were preserved, they might have approached somewhat
closer to the Roman scale. This vast development implies human activity
ona corresponding scale. The so-called Aula Regia of Domitian’s palace
was preceded by an earlier and not much less impressive auditorium. A
small indicator is provided by the lavatories which constitute one of the
few fragments of Nero’s rebuilding on the Palatine: with a capacity of
over forty, they exceed the public lavatories attached to the fora of towns
like Ostia or Corinth, and approach the level of a major modern railway
station. The palace should be seen as a major concourse of human
activity.3!

Rome was where the early emperors held court for serious business:
Italian villas and the Bay of Naples, even in the case of Tiberius’ last

% See Carettoni 1983 (F 316); Zanker 1983 (F 630); Coarelli 1981 (F 332) 129-34.

27 Millar 1977 (a $9) 61-6; Turcan 1987 (D 20) 76ff. 2% Joseph. AJ x1x.1.117.

2 Asc. Seaur. 27¢; Pliny, HN xvit.s.

3% On the Domus Aurea and its extent, see Griffin 1984 (c 352) 134-42; further Frézouls 1987 (D
11). 31 Giuliani 1982 (F 387) 246—54 on structures beneath Domitian’s palace.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

288 7. THE IMPERIAL COURT

years, represented an escape from the pressure of people into relative
otium.>2 The choice of location had implications for the development of
Rome as an imperial city and as the monumental showpiece of the
empire. Many factors, not least tradition, may have dictated this choice;
but one factor of paramount importance was the question of accessibi-
lity. The emperor needed to be readily accessible to a very considerable
number of individuals. The prime function of a court is to provide and
control physical access to the ruler; the courtiers are those who
simultaneously have achieved some degree of regular access for them-
selves and are capable of mediating it to others. It is therefore the
structures and rituals through which access to the ruler is mediated
which give a court its distinctive character. Who could get at the
emperor, and on what conditions?

The composition and rituals of the imperial court were evolved from
patterns current among the Roman upper classes at large.3> Three
groups can be broadly distinguished: family, servile household, and
friends. The first two represent the ‘insiders’, the domus or familia
Caesaris. Wives and children play a central role in court life. Other
relatives were more loosely attached: Roman social custom did not
favour the extended family, and many members of the imperial family
kept separate households. The exceptionally diffuse family network built
up by Augustus explains the physical structure of the palace in his day as
a nexus of partially separate houses: even Tiberius in the last decade of
his adoptive father’s reign kept separate household in the Domus
Tiberiana, while Gaius’ father Germanicus had his own house in the
reign of Tiberius.

Freedmen too, following Roman social custom, might be more or less
loosely attached to their imperial patron’s house: they might reside
within the palace to perform daily services, but they might keep separate
households of their own. Augustus used the houses of freedmen on the
Palatine or elsewhere to escape from visitors or to watch the games,
while the independent houses of Claudius’ great freedmen like Posides
and Callistus were among the wonders of the city.34 What distinguishes
both family and freedmen as ‘insiders’ is their relationship to the
emperor, not their residential location. Fortune, whether through birth,
marriage or the slave market, had placed them in a permanent proximity
to the ruler to which no outsider had access. The imperial household,
unlike that of the medieval or early modern king, opened no avenues to
the talent and ambition of the subject: the element of sheer chance behind

32, D’Arms 1970 (E 30) 73-115.

33 For imperial ceremonial, Friedlander 1922 (A 30) 1. go~103; Alf6ldi 1934 (D 1); for republican
practice, Kroll 1933 (A 54) 11. 59-81. % Suet. Aug. 45 and 72; Pliny, HN xxxvi.6o.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACCESS AND RITUAL 289

the making of a potent freedman was epitomized by Epictetus in the
figure of Felicio, the cobbler slave who by an exchange of hands emerged
as an imperial functionary, to the confusion of his old master.>5 To start
with, the domus Caesaris was many households as well as many houses:
different members of the imperial family kept their own establishments,
and Antonius Pallas, the most famous of Claudius’ freedmen, began his
career as a slave in the confidential service of Claudius’ mother
Antonia.%¢

The court is not simply the ruler’s household, but the household
operating as an interface with the society over which he rules. The
distribution of power in monarchical society is likely to correspond to
the distribution of access to the ruler. In the hellenistic kingdoms there
was marked conflict between the status systems of the court and of the
cities. The royal phi/oi drew their status from proximity to the king; and
the grades of court hierarchy depended not on functional differentiation
but on closeness to the royal person — so in the Ptolemaic court the
descent is from relatives (syngeneis), to those honoured as if relatives, to
the bodyguard (in the sense of royal pages), to first friends, to friends.
The kings paid no attention to the ascriptive status systems of the cities;
consequently out of the court circle the royal friends were derided as
unworthy climbers, ‘flatterers’ or ‘parasites’.>7 Correspondingly the
hellenistic courts developed rituals and ceremonials which opened a
sharp gulf between the king and the norms of Greek or Macedonian
society: pomposity of dress and setting (elaborately canopied thrones);
rituals like proskynesis which, whatever its significance and appropriate-
ness in Persian society, had in the context of Greco-Macedonian society a
profoundly distancing effect; and ceremonial language drawing on that
of cult.

The similarity has often been remarked between these hellenistic philoi
and the amici Caesaris, particularly in view of the apparent (but ill-
attested) distinctions introduced of a cohors primae admissionts (group of
the first admission), secundae admissionis and so on.38 Doubtless there was
hellenistic influence on Roman social ritual, of which the Romans
themselves were aware, just as the differentiation of the freedman
secretariat is probably developed on a hellenistic model. But this
obscures the fundamental gulf between the imperial court and any
hellenistic analogue. For by and large the early Caesars paid elaborate
attention to the status hierarchy of Roman society, dovetailed the

35 Epictetus, Diss. 1.19.16~23. 3% Weaver 1972 (D 22) 90-2, 212-23.

37 For hellenistic court hierarchy, Corradi 1929 (a 18), Mooren 1977 (D 16); for analysis of status
dissonance, Herman 1980-1 (p 12).

38 Friedlander i922 (a 30) 1. 76f; Bang 1921 (D 5); Crook 1935 (p 10) 21-30.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

290 7- THE IMPERIAL COURT

privileges of their amicitia with the demands of ascriptive status, avoided
rituals that set them apart from the aristocracy, and controlled the
tendency of the court to generate a gulf between itself and society.39
The social rituals which channelled access, notably the morning
salutatio and the afternoon cena, were those normal among the nobility of
the late Republic and early Empire. Repeated descriptions of the bustle
of the early morning sa/utatio at the great houses of Rome by Seneca and
the satirists only underline its similarity to the imperial routine: the
emperor was distinguishable in the scale but not the style of his
admissions.“ If he graded his friends into admissiones, so too did others;
Seneca, our only informant on this, attributes the introduction of the
custom to Gaius Gracchus and Livius Drusus.*! Assuming that Vespa-
sian followed the pattern of his predecessors, secretaries and officials
were interviewed and their breviaria read before the admission of friends
to the bedroom, followed by a general salutation. Vespasian may have
started earlier in the day than some, but the daybooks of officials in
Egypt show similar patterns of business.42 Nor is there much trace at this
stage of the evolution of distinctive imperial dress or pomp. The
emperor wore the toga at his levee; if Caligula wore floral tunics, it was
regarded as an aberration, and failed to establish a new ceremonial.*
Other institutions taken directly from the republican nobility include
the appointment of comites (companions), duly rewarded with a salarium,
to form a cohors amicorum, and to join the contubernium (mess) of the
emperor on tour or campaign, and the summoning of amici to form a
constlium to advise on specific issues.“ Naturally, the ‘friends’ and
‘advisers’ of the emperor played a role in public affairs and wielded an
influence which far outran any republican precedent, and the amici
principis were busy men, and regarded by others with awe and even
fear.45 But it is an error to represent the imperial constlium as an
established organ of government with a defined membership. Its
informality was essential. In building on republican precedent in all
these varieties of amcitia, the Caesars not only established themselves as

39 Wallace-Hadrill 1982 (D 21).

# Friedlander 1922 (A 30) 1.9off. (imperial receptions), 240ff (aristocratic receptions); Saller 1982
(F 59) 128f; Turcan 1987 (D 20) 132ff. 41 Seneca Ben. vt.34.2; contra, Alfoldi 1934 (D 1) 28.

42 Suet. Vesp. 21; Millar 1977 (a 59) 209f; cf. Pliny, Ep. 11.5.9 with Sherwin-White ad doc.; cf.
Wilcken 1912 (B 389) no. 41 for the commentarii of a local strategos in Egypt, the fullest of the handful
of such documents to survive.

4 Suet. Calig. 52. Alféldi 1935 (D 2) lays too much emphasis on exceptions.

“ Crook 1955 (D 10) 4-7, 22~4; Millar 1977 (A 59) 110-18; Amarelli 1983 (p 4); Turcan 1987 (D
20) 143ff.

45 Busy: e.g. Sen. Ben. 1.27.2, Pliny, Ep. 11.5.7, Epictetus, Diss. 1.10.9. Held in awe: Tac. Dial.
vitt.3; Pliny, Ep. 1.18.3.

* Crook 1955 (D 10) 104 and passim. Augustus may have planned something more formal: p. 331
(below).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACCESS AND RITUAL 291

respectors of the mores maiorum, but integrated the behaviour of the court
into the patterns of behaviour current in the aristocratic society around
them.

Perhaps the most striking feature of the anecdotal descriptions of
imperial admissions and receptions is the predominance of senators and
members of the upper stratum of the equestrian order. There was
evidently widespread attendance at salutations by members of the
senatorial order (including their wives and children); not until a.D. 12 in
the infirmity of old age did Augustus ask the Senate to be excused his
normal practice of greeting them all at his home.*” As a rule they enjoyed
precedence. Senators were greeted with a kiss — a hellenistic custom
indeed, but one already current among the elite in Cicero’s day.*8 Nero is
said to have denied the kiss to all senators on his return from Greece: this
was a powerful mark of imperial displeasure, not an attempt to reverse
the assumption that senators were entitled to this mark of intimacy.49 A
vivid reflection of the social ties which interconnected the upper orders
and linked them to the emperor is the elder Pliny’s report of the outbreak
of a facial disease in Tiberius’ reign.5° Pliny remarks on the way this
epidemic was restricted in its incidence both geographically to Rome and
socially to the upper orders (proceres): the disease was spread by kissing,
and its extent and restriction reflected the exchange of kisses at the
salutation. Tiberius, who appears to have been affected himself, put a
temporary ban on the custom. The kiss was not reduced to a symbol of
obeisance. Seneca vigorously protests at Gaius’ gesture in proffering his
foot to a consular to kiss: with its overtones of oriental court ritual, this
was precisely the kind of gesture that did not establish itself as the
Roman norm.®*!

Accounts of imperial dinners repeatedly feature senators and
equites.52 Even if Gaius was tickled by the macabre thought that he
could execute both consuls at will, they were reclining next to him in the
positions of honour when the thought arose.*3 Conversely there is a
dearth of anecdotes illustrating the entertainment of the socially humble,
or complaining of their access to the imperial table. Augustus is said only
once to have admitted a freedman (not his own) to his table. His
successors were not necessarily so strict; but there is no sign of imperial
freedmen jostling for places with the proceres. The prime access of
freedmen to the emperors was not on formal occasions, but informal and
backstairs. Helico owed his influence with Gaius to his access to him at

47 Dio tv1.26.2-3. 4% Cic. Ast. xvi.5.2; Kroll 1933 (A 54) 11.59ff.

49 Suet. Ner. 37. 50 Pliny, HN xxvt.3; cf. Val. Max. x1.6.17; Suet. Tib. 34.4; 68.2.
5! Alfoldi 1934 (D 1), 40ff; Sen. Ben. t1.12.1; cf. Epictetus, Diss. 1v.1.17.

Friedlander 1922 (a 30) 1. g8—103: Turcan 1987 (D 20) 237ff; cf. D’Arms 1984 (F 23).
53 Suet. Calig. 32.

Suet. Aug. 74; but cf. Macrob. Saf. 11.4.28 for the entertainment of a slave dealer.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

292 7- THE IMPERIAL COURT

intimate moments, ‘when he was playing ball, taking exercise, at his bath
and at his breakfast, and retiring at night’.55 But as far as social life was
concerned, the early emperors behaved as members of their own social
class, greeting, entertaining, and on occasion reciprocating offices by
accepting hospitality and attending functions.*%

Senators and equites were by no means the sole members of the court
circle. One notable group which regularly met in the court of Augustus
and his successors was that of Greek intellectuals and men of learning —
the philosopher Areius at Augustus’ court, the grammarian Seleucus or
the astrologer Thrasyllus at Tiberius’, the doctor Xenophon at Clau-
dius’, the musician Terpnus at Nero’s. The majority of these are attested
as living at court, sharing the contubernium principis.5’ Here again,
emperors were not setting themselves apart from, but assimilating
themselves to, the habits of the republican and early imperial nobility.
When the historian Timagenes forfeited the amicitia of Augustus, he
went to live with Asinius Pollio.58 In supporting such intellectuals,
emperors were not promoting a group otherwise neglected by society,
but providing themselves and their friends with cultural stimulus of the
type the Roman upper class had come to expect. On the other hand,
because the resources and importance of the imperial house so far outran
those of any aristocratic house, the effect was to introduce a new pattern
of effectively ‘public’ patronage of the arts in place of the strictly private
patronage of the Republic.®°

Because integrated into the social and cultural life of the Roman upper
class, the court not only served to reflect existing norms but dictated the
tone of society. The emperor was seen as a model eagerly imitated by
others. The hothouse atmosphere of the court helped to disseminate
tastes and fashions as well as facial disorders. Fashions in hairstyles or the
decoration of houses throughout the empire closely and rapidly respond
to models set by the court in Rome, and art history points to the deep
penetration of the lives of Romans by the stylistic and moral values of the
imperial circle.

The role of the court in shaping fashion was aided by its use as a place
for the upbringing of the children of favoured courtiers (as well as the
children of foreign and barbarian kings). In hellenistic courts, the pages
or basilikoi paides were a formal institution, enjoying especial prestige,
and kings took into their innermost circle the syztrophoi with whom they

55 Philo, Leg. 175, cf. Millar 1977 (A 59) 74-

56 Millar 1977 (A 59) 112; Wallace-Hadrill 1982 (p 21) 40.

57 Friedlinder 1922 (a 30) 1. 86-8; Millar 1977 (A 59) 83; Turcan 1987 (D 20) zo8ff.

38 Sen. Ira 111.23.4-8. 59 Rawson 1985 (A 79) 100ff, 319.

61 Zanker 1988 (F 633) ch. 7 on the court circle as model for taste. On the parallel role of courts in
the evolution of European culture, see Elias, Court Society, esp 25 8ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACCESS AND RITUAL 293

themselves had been brought up. At Rome there is no trace of royal
pages as a formal rank, but the children of the distinguished certainly
frequented the court, received schooling there (under Augustus at the
hands of the grammarian Verrius Flaccus), attended dinners (explicitly
attested under Claudius), and enjoyed the attentions of emperors and
their wives.®

Looking back from the complacent respectability of the Flavian and
Antonine eras, our historical sources regard the mores of the Julio-
Claudian court with a mixture of shock and astonishment. Profligacy of
sexual morals, grossness and wanton pursuit of the exotic in eating,
above all lavish waste in the construction and decoration of houses
combine with sophistication of taste in literature and an (unRoman)
delight in music. In all this, the imperial court continues in a direct line
the ‘hellenizing’ tendencies of the aristocratic houses of the late
Republic. Such social and cultural trends could not be manipulated by
the emperors at will: the attempts of Augustus and even Tiberius to
impose restraint, whether by legislation or by example, proved futile. In
fact they (probably unwittingly) promoted the trends they professed to
oppose. For by suppressing the traditional channels by which prestige
was generated and made visible under the Republic, through glory in
war and demonstrations of popular favour,® they redirected the compe-
titive energies of the elite into the social displays upon which success ina
court society depended.

This display contained the seeds of its own destruction. Their very
magnificence, as Tacitus observes, was the ruin of the great houses, and
Nero, who outstripped all competition with the sumptuousness of his
Golden House and the wasteful dinners when guests were drenched in
perfume from the ceiling, was surely aware of the political advantages of
ruining his rivals financially with the aid of his unique access to the
wealth of empire. But Nero in turn was ruined by employment of this
technique, both financially and, more damagingly, morally. The accele-
ration in extravagance of his reign produced a revulsion of taste within
the court circle itself, among men from municipal and provincial
backgrounds who perceived the implications of the way of life into
which they found themselves sucked.®5 The tone of the Flavian court, for
which the elder Pliny acts as spokesman, was palpably different.

Just as the court had a decisive impact on the culture and morality of
Roman society at large, it is likely to have played a central role in the
formation of opinion. It is frequently stated that the outlook of our

62 Suet. Gram. 17 (Verrius Flaccus); Suet. Claud. 32, cf. Tac. Ann. xit1.16. Friedlander 1922 (a 30)
1. 85f. 6 Eck 1984 (D 39).

Tac. Ann. 111.55. Cf. Elias, Court Society, esp. 183ff on the use of the technique by Louis XIV.

68 Tac. Ann. xvi.5; cf. Warmington 1969 (C 409) 16of.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

294 J. THE IMPERIAL COURT

sources is ‘senatorial’. In some ways this is undeniable. Republican
historiography had been dominated by senators, and imperial historians
were conscious inheritors of the republican tradition. Respect for the
upper classes in general and for the Senate in particular is one of the
criteria on which emperors are most consistently praised or condemned.
Social contacts within the relatively small group of senators could have
been close, and doubtless many of them saw eye to eye on many issues.
But what cannot be demonstrated is that such a ‘senatorial’ viewpoint is
at variance with an alternative viewpoint, and that things looked rather
differently from the perspective of the Palace.

It is notable that two of our major sources for the Julio-Claudian
period, the elder Pliny and Suetonius, were men of equestrian rank who
held posts in the service of the emperor. Their judgments of individual
emperors and their underlying ideals do not appear to differ significantly
from those of the senatorial Tacitus; on the other hand, both can be taken
to reflect the views of the courts at which they served, Pliny in his loyalty
to the Flavians and their puritanical morality, Suetonius in his implicit
acceptance of the ideals of the ‘golden age’ of Trajan and Hadrian.®
Other non-senatorial sources follow the same pattern. Josephus’ black-
ening of Gaius, though in line with senatorial opinion, was determined
by his own Jewish sensibilities, and was evidently quite acceptable to his
Flavian patrons. Epictetus’ reminiscences of court life are based on his
experience as slave of Epaphroditus; though his master was close to
Nero, he fully shares the ‘senatorial’ view of Nero as a tyrant.®”

Without suggesting that the court always had a homogeneous point of
view (there could be deep internal conflicts, as under Nero), it is not hard
to imagine that it may have acted as a focus for discussion, gossip, and
eventual opinion formation. Gossip it generated in abundance, and
courtiers at all levels might be the source of anecdotes, from Augustus’
attendant Julius Marathus who could describe his physique, and the
interiores aulici who had theories about Gaius’ Baiae bridge, to reminis-
cences by consulars about what had been said at the imperial table.68
Imperial freedmen were a source of valuable information to contempor-
aries: leaking of inside information, or to use their own expression, the
‘sale of smoke’, became a familiar abuse in the Antonine court, but
already we are told that Augustus broke the legs of a secretary for selling
the contents of a letter.®

Behind trivial gossip lies concealed the serious purpose of the

% Wallace-Hadrill 1983 (B 190) 99ff; Gascou 1984 (B $9) 711ff; Lambrecht 1984 (8 103).
67 Rajak 1983 (B 147) 185f on Josephus; Millar 1965 (p 14) on Epictetus.

68 Suet. Aug. 79 and 94.3; Calig. 19.3; Tib. 61.6.

6 Suet. Aug. 67; Friedlander 1922 (A 30) 1. 47 on the sale of smoke; cf. Mart. 1v.5.7.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACCESS AND RITUAL 295

exchange of observations and impressions by those in the imperial
entourage. Court life, as Saint Simon appreciated, is a watching game. It
could be vital to second-guess the imperial mind, to see who was rising in
favour and who falling, and what changes were in the wind, for on such
observations, as Sejanus’ faction discovered to their cost, fortune and
even life depended. Tacitus’ description of the dinner at which Britanni-
cus was poisoned suggests something of the sense of urgency of the
game, and of the simultaneous need to see into the minds of others while
concealing one’s own: ‘those sitting nearby were thrown into confusion;
the imprudent fled, but those with deeper understanding remained
rooted to the spot and watched Nero’.7

Assessments of individual emperors and their characters are surpris-
ingly constant in the different sources, and it was once the fashion of
source-criticism to posit a single source from whose initial assessment of
an emperor all successive accounts derived. This perhaps underestimates
the potential of the social circles around the court, the convivia et circuli of
whose part in shaping public opinion Tiberius was aware,’! to evolve a
stereotype of the character of the ruler. In his lifetime assessments will
have been fluid; but after his death, the court of the succeeding ruler
could impose a definitive stamp. The image of Claudius as a fool was one
Nero deliberately encouraged, both by his own chance remarks, and by
the publication of the Apocolocyntosis by his closest adviser; Nero was
surely drawing on and encouraging court gossip here, and there is no
need to lay the blame for the image of Claudius solely on the malice of
senators outraged by the power of the secretariat.72

In social terms, then, the Julio-Claudian emperors, whatever the
political strains they may have experienced with the Senate, and however
much power they may have allowed to their freedmen, drew their friends
and companions from the upper class, afforded them easy access, failed to
elaborate rituals that set themselves apart, and were bonded to them by
the integrating force of common culture. Rather than regarding the
court as an institution apart, we might think of it as the centre ofa sort of
solar system. Numerous houses of the rich and powerful in the city of
Rome acted as lesser courts, centres of influence round which social
activity clustered, to which visitors and clients thronged in the morning,
and where sophisticated entertainment was provided later in the day.
The palace was both similar to them and yet outshone them, the centre
round which they themselves revolved, and from which ultimately they
derived their own radiance.

70 Tac. Ann. xtt.16. See Elias, Court Society, 104ff on observation at court.

"Tac. Ann. 111.54.1.
7 Griffin 1976 (B 71) 129f on the context of the Apocolocyntosis.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

296 7. THE IMPERIAL COURT

III PATRONAGE, POWER AND GOVERNMENT

The social rituals of a court may act as a fagade to screen the realities of
power. The endlessly elaborate etiquette and ceremonial of the French
court of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries partly served to mask
the diversion of power from the old nobility by substituting the fagade of
social precedence for the realities of control.73 The ‘civility’ for which
‘good’ emperors are praised by the sources has also been seen as a
charade designed to screen the unpalatable truth of imperial power. The
disjunction between appearance and reality has been greatly exagger-
ated. For while emperors undoubtedly used the court to control and
limit the power of the upper classes, they also used it to strengthen their
own power by embedding it within the existing social structure. The
relationship of emperor and upper classes is thus complex and
ambivalent.74

What drew men to court was more than social life. The court was the
font of power and favour — and so the scene of anxieties and humilia-
tions. Men love or hate Caesar, according to Epictetus, only because of
his power to confer and take away advantages, wealth, military rank,
praetorships or consulships.’> The court inspires fear, not just of
bodyguards and chamberlains and the like, but because of anxiety to
secure the benefits Caesar distributes, governorships, procuratorships,
praetorships, consulships, money; the courtiers behave like children
fighting in their scramble to gather the scattered figs and nuts.’ The lure
of court is irresistible: the returning exile who swore to live in peace
could not resist the invitation to court, and found himself praetorian
prefect.”7 Yet was success worth the humiliations involved? The rising
early, the running around, the kissing hands, rotting at others’ doors,
speaking and acting like a slave, sending gifts?78

From the first, emperors derived power from their ability to distribute
resources. Claudius had shown, according to Seneca, how much more
effectively imperial power was secured by favours (beneficia) than by
arms.79 The range Of beneficia was enormous: status and legal privileges
(citizenship, equestrian and senatorial rank, privileges like the sus trinm
liberorum etc.), magistracies, posts in the army and administration,
financial benefits (fiscal concessions and immunities, subventions after
disaster, grants to enhance status, and numberless liberalities to favour-
ites and courtiers) and judgment (from resolution of disputes to cases of
life and death). Documents and anecdotes evoke a vivid picture of the
pressure of petitions and requests from individuals and communities

73 So Elias, Court Society, 78f. 74 Wallace-Hadrill 1982 (D 21).
75 Epictetus, Diss. tv.1.60; cf. Millar 1965 (D 14). 76 Diss. w.7. 7 Diss. 1.10.
7 Diss. tv.10. 79 Sen. Cons. ad Polyb. 12.3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE, POWER 297

across the empire on the person of the emperor, and the personal nature
of his involvement.8° Yet though he and not any subordinate bureau-
cracy was the source of the benefits, inevitably the requests were
mediated through others. Hence the patronage of the emperor is the
centre of a complex web, in which the courtiers act as brokers as well as
beneficiaries.®!

The network emerged rapidly. One aspect is the swift evolution of a
ramifying secretariat of slaves and freedmen. Over 4,000 inscriptions,
mostly sepulchral, attest the sheer scale of the imperial secretariat over
the course of the Empire.8? The shape of imperial business dictated the
division and organization of labour, and it is significant that the lines
along which it divided were not areas of government but the channels of
communication between subject and ruler. The letters, petitions, embas-
sies and legal hearings which brought contact with the emperor
generated the Palatine ‘offices’ of ab epistulis, a libellis, a legationibus and a
cognitionibus, and alongside these record-keeping (@ memoria) and above
all supervision of the vast imperial wealth, ambivalent in its status
between the public and the private (@ rationibus), account for the main
activities of the secretariat.83 Such divisions may go back at an informal
level to Augustus,® but it is notoriously under Claudius that the formal
titulature that became standard is first seen in the literary sources in the
naming of Polybius, Narcissus and Pallas as a@ studiis, ab epistulis and a
rationibus respectively, and on the testimony of one who himself held two
of these posts.85 At once, such titles acquired an imperial ring: the charge
against the two Torquati Silani under Nero of nursing imperial ambi-
tions in calling their secretaries ab epistulis, a libellis and a rationibus shows
how for all its origins in the bloated servile households of the aristocracy,
the imperial household had grown into something of quite another
order.86

In some respects, the familia Caesaris betrays characteristic features of
bureaucratic government. We can detect the emergence of bureaux with
their own hierarchy of subordinate posts, from slave fabellarii, through
junior freedmen adiutores, tabularii and a commentariis, to the senior grade
of proximus immediately below the head, himself known simply by the
name of his officium (e.g. ab epistulis). The grades seem clearly distinguish-
able in terms of age-range (senior officials were normally old men), even
if a set salary structure must be regarded as hypothetical.8’ The personnel
could be regarded as ‘officials’ embarked on a quasi-public career

8 Millar 1977 (a $9) passim and 1967 (D 15). 81 Saller 1982 (F 59) aiff.

82 Weaver 1972 (D 22) 8. 83 Millar 1977 (A 59) 203ff. % Boulvert 1970 (D 6) 5 3ff.

85 Suet. Claud. 28; cf. Wallace-Hadrill 1983 (B 190) 73ff.

86 Tac. Ann. xv.35 and xv1.8.

87 Weaver 1972 (D 22) 227ff; Boulvert 1974 (D 7) 127ff on grades is too schematic, cf. Burton 1977

(D 8).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

298 7. THE IMPERIAL COURT

partially analogous to the cursus honorum: this much is implicit in Statius’
panegyrical account of the career of the father of Claudius Etruscus,
whose promotions through a series of posts brought him progressive
honour,8 and also in those epitaphs which imitate senators and eques-
trians in listing posts in ascending or descending sequence.

But in analysing the functions and powers of the familia Caesaris, it is
misleading to assimilate it to a modern bureaucracy. Much more fruitful
analogies lie in the royaf households of medieval and Renaissance
Europe. One essential feature of the household is that it serves the
person of the ruler in all his activities, private or public, small or large.
Private functions of the ruler (the bedchamber, the table, the stables etc.)
are hard to separate from the public and administrative. Just as the
medieval English court generated numerous — and to us faintly ludicrous
— subdivisions in the private sphere, of spicery, napery, ewery, and
apothecary, of garcons of the sumpterhorse or valets of the garbage,® or
as the court of Francis I of France gloried in its sixty categories of
household officials, down to furriers, spit-turners, tapestry-makers and
laundresses,® so the imperial court displays a dizzy proliferation of
minutely defined functions, such as the many divisions of the wardrobe
(a veste privata, forensi, castrensi, munda, alba triumphali, matutina venatoria,
regia et Graecula etc.) or of the buttery (a crystallinis, a cyatho, a lagona, a
potione etc.).°' The fact that a freedman might advance like Ti. Claudius
Aug. lib. Bucolas from taster (praegustator) and butler (¢ricliniarchus) to
procurator aquarum, with cate for the aqueducts of Rome, and procurator
castrensis, steward of the Palace,%2 certainly affected contemporary per-
ceptions of imperial freedmen, and should at least make us pause before
categorizing them as ‘civil servants’. Separation of domus and respublica
was an empty promise.”

The range of posts within and without the Palace reflected the
diversity of its activities, from distribution of resources and judgment to
feasting and entertainment. Certainly the appointment of equestrians to
the major secretarial posts which Vitellius initiated shows their develop-
ment under the Julio-Claudians to a conspicuous role in public life; yet
equestrians had been employed before this in the imperial household in
less ‘political’ functions, like Pompeius Macer as a bibliothecis under
Augustus, let alone Tiberius’ shocking appointment of an equestrian to
charge of his ‘pleasures’ (2 voluptatibus), a post regarded by a later

88 Stat. Sily. 111.5.63f, ef. Weaver 1972 (D 22) 284ff.

89 C. Given-Wilson, The Royal Household and the King’s Affinity. Service, Politics and Finance in
England 1360-1413 (New Haven—London, 1986), 58f.

% R.J. Knecht, European Studies Review 8 (1978) 2.

% Hirschfeld 1912 (D 13) 307ff; Duff 1958 (F 28) 143ff; Turcan 1987 (D 20) 51 ff.

92 CIL xx 3612, xv 7279 = ILS 1567, 8679, 7280.

93 Tac. Ann. x111.4; Pavis d’Escurac 1987 (p 18).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE, POWER 299

freedman as a splendid promotion.™ It does not help to draw a hard and
fast line between private and public functions. The role of the important
post a studiis is notably obscure, but may have ranged from advice on
imperial speeches to grammatical commentary on private reading of
literature.

In trying to understand the power of the imperial freedman, then, it is
not enough to say that the early emperors turned their household into a
new arm of government (though this is clearly the case). The power of
the freedman derived from his proximity to the emperor and his
consequent ability to influence specific aspects of resource-distribution.
The word even of a court-jester might cost a man his life.9% Claudius’
prepotent freedmen, who included Posides the eunuch and Harpocras as
well as the ‘heads of bureaux’, owed their power to their master’s
combination of an insatiable appetite to bestow favours and judgment
with an inability to control the detail of so many transactions. The
mistresses of emperors, as of many later kings, were in an ideal position
to extract favours, as Vespasian’s Caenis, with her long experience of the
court, well understood.” That the elite resented the wealth and influence
which flowed from such brokerage is not surprising, not because the use
of political position to amass gratia was new to Roman society, but
precisely because the exercise of patronage was how the elite tradition-
ally defined its own standing. Imperial freedmen established no mono-
poly in this respect, and the fact that the court became the focus of elite
patronage too underlay the tension.

The reign of Augustus was one of transition from the pluralist
patronage system of the Republic, whereby the nobility competed with
each other to maximize their following and thus their influence with the
populus Romanus, to the imperial pattern under which the emperor
monopolized the support of the popu/us, and the elite looked to him for
favours, which they in their turn distributed to others.%8 The number of
benefits within the imperial gift multiplied throughout the Julio-
Claudian period: the number of posts in the imperial service rose, and
rights and privileges like the ius trium liberorum or even leave of absence
from the Senate were quietly absorbed by successive emperors by steps
we can mostly no longer trace. But the core of imperial patronage, round
which all else accrued, was there from the start: the wealth that lowed
from victory in civil war, and the control over appointments in the army
and ‘imperial’ provinces.

From the first, then, the elite looked to the emperor for favours, and

Suet. Tib. 42.2; CIL vi 8619 (Ianuarius Aug. lib.), ‘ad splendidam voluptatum statiof{nem
promotus]’. 95 Millar 1977 (A 59) 205; Wallace-Hadrill 1983 (B 190) 83-6.

% Suet. Tib. 61.6. 7 Suet. Vesp. 3 and 21; Dio cxvi.14.

% Saller 1982 (F 59) 73f; Wallace-Hadrill 1989 (F 75) 78f.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

300 7. THE IMPERIAL COURT

their attendance at court was motivated by pursuit of favours. The court
thus played a vital role in consolidating imperial power within the
context of imperial society. First, it enabled the ruler to control the
elite. In order to pursue power it was necessary to come to Rome and
enter the intrigue of the court. That firmly established Rome as the arena
of political conflict and discouraged the emergence of alternative
regional power bases. The ‘big men’ of the empire were under the
immediate eye of the emperor. He could manipulate their ambition by
playing them off against each other, using his control of the distribution
of resources to keep them on tenterhooks, withholding favours and
elevating new favourites if the influence of old favourites threatened to
become entrenched. Secondly, he could through the elite exercise a
progressively wider control throughout the empire. The elite, senatorial
and equestrian, was drawn from the municipalities of Italy and, in this
period, increasingly the western provinces. Those at court acted as
brokers for their contacts at home, securing benefits for them and
drawing further compatriots into the circle of power at Rome —a marked
example of this process is the rise of Spaniards in various posts in the
administration during the Corduban Seneca’s period of influence with
Nero,10

Within the broad circle of the hopeful and ambitious who attended the
court, there was an inner circle of amici upon whom emperors called for
advice in a variety of circumstances: to assist in giving judgment,
whether in public imperial cognitiones, or in the more sinister trials infra
cubiculum, and to handle a whole range of questions from the trivial and
routine to matters of high state. Perhaps there were times when not even
the amici could predict the gravity of the questions to be considered:
Juvenal’s picture of an imperial council debating the preparation of a fish
may be satire, but Nero is said to have called the primores to his house in
the Vindex crisis only to spend the day, after brief political consultation,
discussing types of musical organ.!°! Augustus’ innovation ofa standing
committee of senators with regular meetings and a defined and rotating
membership which prepared business for the Senate was not continued
by his successors; thereafter such business was dealt with on the same
informal and ad hoc basis as other matters. There was no such thing, as the
classic study of the subject has emphasized, as the consilinm principis.'02
Lack of definition, in membership and function, only increased the
discretionary powers of the ruler: this too was among the arcana imperii.
Even so, some were called for consultation more regularly, and on more

® Cf. Elias, Court Society, 146ff. 10 Griffin 1976 (B 71), 81-96.

101 Juv. Sat. 4; Suet. Ner. 41.2, better than Dio Lxmt.26.4.
1@ Crook 1955 (D 10) 8-20; 104ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE, POWER 301

sensitive issues, than others, and these could be seen as ¢he friends of
Caesar.

The accessibility of the emperor to the elite thus worked to their
mutual advantage. Individual members of the elite had access to power
and influence; the emperor was able to reduce the elite to dependence on
himself. That does not mean that the court operated smoothly and
without tension. On the contrary, it was a battleground — much more so
than the Senate, where the only real battles were trials. In the Julio-
Claudian period the battle was particularly bloody, for while the system
was still emergent, major tensions were unresolved. The sharpness of the
conflict is reflected in the bitterness of the accounts given by the sources,
for instance the power of the praetorian prefect Sejanus under Tiberius,
or that of the freedmen Pallas and Narcissus under Claudius. Two areas
of tension are apparent: that within the senatorial-equestrian elite, and
that between the elite and members of the inner imperial household,
especially the freedmen officials.

Because of the obvious contrast between the monarchical nature of
the court and the republican nature of the Senate, it is tempting to
envisage a permanent tension between senators as a group and non-
senators, whether eguites or imperial freedmen, as an opposed group, a
temptation strengthened by the old theory of a legal separation of
powers between emperor and Senate. This is to understate the com-
plexity of the conflict.'% It is true that Augustus’ creation of the great
equestrian prefectures, and the power attained by the chief freedmen
secretaries under Gaius, Claudius and Nero, created a new disjunction
between power and status, which resulted in strange inversions of social
precedence, as when the equestrian prefects followed the consuls, but
preceded the other magistrates, in swearing the oath of allegiance to
Tiberius, or Claudius’ freedman Polybius walked in public between the
two consuls.'% A divorce between status and power meant that the
emperor was less trammelled by social constraints in distributing power,
and could neutralize those by whom he felt threatened by palming them
off with marks of high status that carried little power. It is not unlikely
that even Augustus saw the advantages of such a strategy and played it
deliberately.

But it is wrong to represent the senators as a coherent group, either
socially or politically. They were as much creatures of the court as the
imperial freedmen. Patronage cut across status barriers: senators enlisted
the support of eguites and freedmen, but conversely equestrian and

103 See Millar 1977 (A 59) 275; Brunt 1983 (D 26); Demougin 1988 (D 37).

104 Tac. Ann. 1.7; Suet. Claud. 28; cf. Tac. Amn. xv1.17 on the ‘praepostera ambitio’ of Annzeus
Mela. 105 Hopkins 1983 (a 46) 176f.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

302 7. THE IMPERIAL COURT

freedmen posts might be owed to the brokerage of senators. Alliances
like that between Vespasian and Narcissus worked to the advantage of
both parties. Within the Senate distinctions may be drawn: not perhaps
between men in the ‘imperial service’ and others, since imperial
patronage also affected posts that were not direct imperial appointments,
but between a ‘grand set’ of those swiftly promoted in status who
enjoyed little power, anda ‘power set’ of those who rose more slowly but
were entrusted with greater responsibility.!°%° But even this distinction
may understate the influence wielded at court by members of the grand
set, who having risen rapidly thanks to good connexions may well have
continued to exercise their connexions to the benefit of others. The lines
of division of the elite at court were not between the social ranks of
senator, eques and freedman, which were united by multiple ties of family,
friendship and interest, but between groups of mixed status: the fissures
were vertical not horizontal.

The heyday of the power of freedmen coincides with a period of
intrigue and influence among the female members of the imperial
household. Wives and freedmen have it in common that they are
‘insiders’ and therefore stand apart from the ‘outsider’ elite. In no sense
were freedmen in competition with members of the elite: they were not
eligible for army rank nor senatorial positions (even if they could be
awarded military and senatorial decorations); they did not function as
amici, and there is no sign that they were invited to attend the consilium— it
is with high irony that Tacitus depicts Claudius in consilio when
consulting his freedmen.!° Nor, as we have seen, do they appear to have
shared in the social life of the court. Unlike elite brokers of patronage,
they were not themselves competitors. Their competition was with each
other (Pallas’ award of the insignia of the praetorship reflects compe-
tition not with senators but with his fellow-freedman Narcissus, pre-
viously decorated with the quaestorship); in exactly the same way the
imperial women competed for influence with each other, excluded by
their sex from the men’s world of offices. The influence of freedmen
should therefore be seen in the context of the pattern of court intrigue in
which the women were simultaneously involved. Their power came
from the conflict of competing groups.

The women of the Julio-Claudian household were openly involved in
the operation of patronage. We hear casually of Livia’s role in promoting
Galba and the grandfather of the emperor Otho.!% An inscription shows
her openly acknowledged by Augustus for her role in securing privileges

106 Hopkins 1983 (A 46) 171; Elias, Court Society, 169ff.

107 Tac. Ann. xit.1; cf. Crook 1955 (D 10) 42.
1088 Suet. Galba 5; Orb. 1; cf. Purcell 1986 (F 50).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE, POWER 303

for the island of Samos.!® Networks of friendship extended from the
palace among the women of the Roman elite. Seneca (who owed the start
of his career to his aunt Helvia, and its furtherance to Agrippina) takes
for granted that Marcia, as an intimate of Livia, used her influence to
secure a priesthood for her own son.'!0 Messallina abused her position
not by exercising but by selling patronage: together with Claudius’
freedmen, she sold the citizenship so liberally that it was said to be had in
exchange for glass beads, and not only the citizenship, nor even military
commands and provincial governorships, but everything in general.1!
Her presence at the trial intra cubiculum of Valerius Asiaticus was
something altogether more sinister.!!2

Female involvement in patronage was not simply a side product of the
system. From Augustus to Nero the imperial court is characterized by
sharp intrigue that periodically surfaces in the eruption of major
conflicts between competing groups; in almost all these conflicts, the
women play a central role. The court of Louis XIV was analysed by
participants as split between cabals that clustered round various
members of the royal family; any distinctions of political or religious
principle that could be detected between the cabals were of secondary
significance.'!3 A similar analysis seems to.apply to the Julio-Claudian
court. The power groupings are heterogeneous in composition: female
members of the domus Caesaris and their children, leading freedmen,
senators and eqxifes. Lucius Vitellius, that epitome of a courtier, thrice
consul and censor, was said to have carried around Messallina’s slipper
and kissed it from time to time, and to have kept the images of Narcissus
and Pallas among his /ares.114

The aim of a cabal is to maximize its own influence in the distribution
of resources. Naturally groupings tend to form around potential
candidates for the succession: there are already hints of rival groups
round Octavia and her son Marcellus on one side, Agrippa, Livia and her
sons on the other early in Augustus’ reign,''5 clear signs of rival groups
round Julia, Livia and their respective sons later,!'® and under Tiberius
explicit feuding between the supporters of Agrippina and those of
Sejanus, adulterously linked to Livilla.!!7 It should not be assumed that
such cabals formed with explicit designs on the throne: the mere
existence of a potential successor is enough to constitute a catalyst for
intrigue, and much of the policy of intermarriage and interadoption,

109 Reynolds 1982 (B 270) no. 13 line 5, cf. Suet. Aug. 40. "0 Sen. Cons. ad Marciam 24.3.

11 Dio Lx.17.5—8. 112 Tac. Aan. xi.2.

3 See E. Le Roy Ladurie ‘Versailles observed: the court of Louis XIV in 1709’ (in The Mind and
Method of the Historian. Trans. S. and B. Reynolds. Brighton, 1981) for analysis of cabals.

"4 Suet. Vit. 2. 4S Syme 1939 (A 93) 340-2.
"6 Syme 1984 (A 94) II. 91 2—36. "7 Levick 1976 (c 366) 148ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

304 7. THE IMPERIAL COURT

particularly as practised by Augustus, must have been designed (how-
ever ineffectively) to frustrate the formation of rival cabals. The marriage
of Tiberius to Iulia, for instance, though it did little to clarify the line of
succession to power, must have aimed to obviate precisely the sort of
tensions and rivalries that erupted with such unfortunate consequences.

A characteristic of conflict between rival groupings is that they come
to a head in accusations of adultery — against the two lulias, Livilla and
Sejanus, the sisters of Gaius, Messallina, and Nero’s betrothed Octavia.
The charge of adultery is often regarded as a sham to disguise political
realities; indeed the strings of ‘accomplices’ of the adultery of the Iulias
indicate that no ordinary adultery is involved.!18 But we should not
underestimate the threat posed to stability within the court by adulterous
liaisons (nor overestimate the innocence of the accused). Since marriage
was used as an official instrument of dynastic policy, to mark succession
and to unify potentially divergent groups, adultery represented the
inverse, the dark underside of intrigue and group formation out of the
emperor’s control. Sejanus’ adultery was seen as a vital step in his rise to
influence and his establishment of a stranglehold over the network of
patronage. Of course, someaccusations of adultery were false, and could
be cooked up by rival interests to discredit the accused (Livia must be
suspect on this count). But, as with accusations of magic, which was the
inverse of the divine protection behind imperial power, the charge
reflected a threat to imperial power which the participants felt to be real.

Finally, we should not exaggerate the rigidity of such cabals. Their
membership was unstable and fluid. Loyalties and friendships could
evaporate in a moment (it was the misfortune of Sejanus’ supporters that
they had no warning of his fall). Courtiers watched carefully to see whose
stock was rising with the emperor, whose falling. ‘Nothing in human
affairs is so unstable and fluid as the reputation of power’: Agrippina’s
crowded threshold was deserted in an instant when the whisper
circulated of her son Nero’s displeasure.!!9 Epictetus compares court life
to the lot of a traveller who attaches himself to the convoy of a passing
official for protection from bandits; the friendship of Caesar is an equally
undependable method of progress, hard to pick up, easy to be lost, and
limited by the life chances of the Caesar himself.!20 The point applies
similarly to friendship with Caesar’s friends. Moreover, the groupings
were fissile, potentially divided into further groupings. Messallina was
overthrown by a combination of her old supporters, Narcissus and
Vitellius; during the crisis, Narcissus did not feel sure even of Vitellius
and had him excluded from the imperial litter.'21 Though supported in
the overthrow by Pallas, Narcissus was ruined by the combination of

8 Tac. Ann. 111.24; cf. Syme 1984 (A 94) Ut.g24f. 119 Tac. Ann. xtt.19.
120 Epictetus, Diss. tv.1.91-8. 121 Tac. Aan. x1.33.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE, POWER 305

Pallas and Agrippina, having unwisely shown too much interest in
Britannicus. Agrippina was abandoned by her protégés Seneca and
Burrus. Such cases serve as warning against any attempt to detect long-
term political groupings and alliances.

With new patterns of politics, the court generated new styles of life
peculiar to itself. Even survival, let alone success, was fraught with
dangers. Seneca reports the reply of the old courtier asked with
amazement how he had reached old age at court: ‘by accepting insults
and expressing gratitude for them’.!22 Flattery and the concealment of
true feelings were a structural necessity. Seneca goes on to tell the tale of
the distinguished eques Pastor who, on the very day that his son was
executed by Gaius, was bidden to make merry at the imperial table.
There was a reason for the courtier’s bizarre compliance with the
invitation — he had a second son. A degree of self-abasement and
hypocrisy seemed necessary even under the best-intentioned emperors:
Tiberius complained of the servility of his senators, but failed to stop it.
In this respect, the Senate acted as an extension of court life; the adulatio
of which Tacitus complains, the incessant manufacture of honorific
decrees and inflated language, came from men with an eye to promotion
or merely survival at court.

Hypocrisy and flattery stood in direct antithesis to the /ibertas of frank
expression and independent opinion on which the republican nobility
prided itself.123 It was not however mere traditionalist sentiment which
made men under the Principate hanker for the old /ibertas. The new court
life was highly unstable, and placed gross psychological strains on the
courtier, who hardly knew whom to trust and whom to back from one
moment to another. The agony felt by the friends of the disgraced
Sejanus, eloquently voiced by M. Terentius, struck a chord with every
anxious courtier: ‘It is not ours to reason whom you choose to elevate
above others and on what grounds; the gods have given you the final say;
it is left to us to take pride in loyalty.’!24 But such obsequium was no
defence for those who backed a loser.

In this context of instability and psychological strain, philosophy had
an important role to play. Stoicism, with its stress on the value of single-
minded pursuit of public duty and virtues irrespective of the dangers,
offered a vital antidote to the hypocrisy of court life.!% It is no
coincidence that Stoicism flourished, in martyrs like Thrasea Paetus,
when the excesses of Nero’s court were at their peak. The philosophy of
both Seneca and Epictetus emerges from men with a court background

'2 Sen. Ira 1.33.2. 13 Wirszubski 1950 (a 107) 124ff; Brunt 1988 (a 11) 281ff.
1% Tac. Ann. v1.8.

'2 On Stoicism and politics, Brunt 1975 (F 107); on Nero’s court, Griffin 1976 (B 71);
Warmington 1969 (c 409) 142-54.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

306 7. THE IMPERIAL COURT

and offers explicit reaction against court morality. In the long run the
Stoics carried their point, and the tone did change. Yet a century later,
the Stoic emperor Marcus still needs his philosophy as antidote to court
life, its vain pomp and superficiality, its transitory quarrels and ambi-
tions, and the sheer irritation of working with the pettiness of his
courtiers. !26

IV.. CONCLUSION

The court, as social and political institution, lies at the heart of the new
regime established by Augustus and his heirs. It also encapsulates the
paradoxes of that regime, and the way it transformed the structures of
the old city-state to create those of the new monarchy. The household of
a private citizen, based on the forms and practices of the households of
the republican nobility, became the centre of the state; the focus of
political activity shifted irrevocably from a plurality of households to a
single one, sprawling monstrously over the symbolical heart of Rome. In
drawing to itself the threads of patronage, the court brought the
transactions of political dealing under imperial surveillance.

The similarities to the royal courts of the East were only too apparent
to participants. Court life brought servility in the place of the freedom of
a society of citizen equals. The tone of public discourse changed, from
bold self-advertisement and uninhibited attack on rivals, to self-conceal-
ment and lip-service to the source of power. And yet the transition from
city-state to monarchy was a hesitant and gradual one, and the reuse of
old forms was essential. The Julio-Claudian court preserved the social
hierarchy of the Republic, while yet seeming to undermine it and subject
senators to slaves. The early emperors needed to exercise power with,
not against, the traditional ruling class. They used republican forms to
establish their own dominance while appearing to respect their fellow-
citizens. The rituals of court allowed them at one level to use the
republican status hierarchy to legitimate their own position, while at
another playing off the aristocracy against new men promoted from the
provinces and against /#berti, ignoble but potent. The accessibility of the
emperor to the upper classes and his ‘civil’ treatment of them as ‘equals’
was an essential part of the strategy of power, and it makes the imperial
court fundamentally different from the court of any hellenistic ruler.

Between Augustus and Nero the patterns of court life were develop-
ing, and still far from fixed. But there is an unmistakable movement
towards formalization and institutionalization. The differentiation of the
secretariat and the evolution of its internal hierarchy is one tangible

1% Cf. Brunt 1974 (B 19)-

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONCLUSION 307

example of this. It is also right to emphasize the element of continuity.!2’
When we ask what made possible the stability of the government
evolved by Augustus, which despite its extraordinary lack of legal
definition and its reliance on Augustus’ own charismatic personality,
nevertheless managed to survive the eccentricities of four members of
his own house and a return to civil war, to become the system without
which peace was unthinkable, the answer must lie partly in the imperial
court. Despite notable instances of the fall of political favourites, like
Sejanus or Seneca, there was an underlying continuity of personnel. The
Flavians were served by many with long experience of power in the
Julio-Claudian court. The anonymous father of Claudius Etruscus, who
served as freedman of every Caesar from Tiberius to Domitian to die in
his ninetieth year excited Statius’ admiration by surviving so many
changes of yoke and so many stormy seas.!28 But though few could rival
him in longevity, imperial slaves and freedmen, originally personal to
Augustus, came to transfer automatically to the new regime, giving rise
to a stability of staff.

The same continuity can be observed at higher social levels. It is
striking what long and intimate links each of Nero’s successors display
with the Julio-Claudian court. Galba started as a favourite of Livia, and
served successive emperors, being especially favoured by Claudius who
admitted him to his cohors amicorum.!29 Otho was grandson of another of
Livia’s protégés and son of one so admired by Claudius as to be
honoured with a statue on the Palatine; his own intimacy with Nero was
notorious.!%9 Vitellius, grandson of an Augustan procurator, and son of
that most adept of Claudian courtiers, also had an uncle whose links with
Sejanus cost him his life; while he himself followed the tastes of each
Caesar with remarkable pliability, a sexual favourite under Tiberius, a
charioteer under Gaius, a dicer under Claudius, a musician under
Nero.!3! Vespasian, as we have seen, met both favour and disgrace at
court, while his son Titus was intimate enough with Britannicus to have
risked sharing his fate. Even in Nerva, at the end of the century, we finda
sexagenarian, whose loyalty to Nero had earned him a statue on the
Palatine, and a member of a family whose three generations of loyalty to
the dynasty stretched back to the treaty of Brundisium in 39 s.c.!32 If
others were as well served biographically as were emperors, such family
histories of continuous service would be multiplied.

Good friends, Trajan is supposed to have said, compensated for

127 Crook 1955 (D 10) 29, 115ff etc.

18 Stat. Silv. 1.3.85, ‘tu totiens mutata ducum iuga rite tulistilinteger, inque omni felix tua
cumba profundo’; Weaver 1972 (D 22) 284f.

129 Suet. Galba 5 and 7. 130 Suet. Osb. 1. 131 Suet. Vit. 2-4.

132 Crook 1955 (D 10) 159f; for the consulate of Nerva’s father, AE 1979, 100.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

308 7. THE IMPERIAL COURT

Domitian’s bad rule.!33 But emperors inevitably took over their pre-
decessors’ friends and servants, good or bad, since these made them-
selves indispensable. Vested interests were at stake. Augustus and his
successors needed a court in order to rule; but if imperial rule came under
question, the court needed its emperor. Thus, despite its conflicts and
distasteful features, the court was a system of power which tended to its
own perpetuation.

133 SHA Alex. Sev. 65.5; cf. Tac. Hist. 1v.7.3, ‘nullum maius boni imperii instramentum quam
bonos amicos esse.’

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 8

THE IMPERIAL FINANCES

D. W. RATHBONE

The economic resources at the disposal of the emperors from Augustus
to Vitellius and the uses which they made of them are most clearly
explained against the background of the state expenditure of the Roman
empire.!

The empire required an army, and under Augustus a standing army
was developed, of which the size and terms of service of the legionary
component remained broadly stable throughout this period, although
the nature of the auxiliary component took much longer to crystallize.?
Annual pay for a legionary was goo sesterces, while cavalrymen, higher
ranks and the praetorian guard received considerably more. There were
stoppages against this pay for replacement equipment and clothing and
almost certainly for food. On discharge a surviving legionary in theory
received a bounty of 12,000 sesterces — equivalent to over twelve years’
basic pay, and soa third of a surviving veteran’s total remuneration — but
he may often have been given a plot of land in a frontier zone instead or
in patt payment. The conversion of auxiliary forces, traditionally
supplied ad hoc by allied states, into regular units of the Roman army and
the standardization of their terms of service and remuneration were slow
processes which lasted into the Flavian era. The rate of pay for auxiliary
troops remains frustratingly uncertain (footsoldiers may have received a
half or five-sixths or some intermediate fraction of the basic legionary
rate), as does the date of its standardization (perhaps under Claudius, but
perhaps not until the Flavians). There is no evidence that auxiliaries in
this period regularly received either cash or land on discharge. Instead,
from Claudius on, Roman citizenship was used as a cheap reward, along
with the limited tax immunities which were probably granted to all
veterans. Pay for all soldiers was sometimes supplemented by bonuses
given by emperors on political occasions (booty was another possible
extra, though hardly state expenditure). Other military expenditure
included materials for defences, camps, all kinds of equipment, transport
and riding animals, and supplies. There were also the fleets to maintain.

' General treatments: Frank 1940 (D 128) v. chs. III; Neesen 1980 (D 151); Lo Cascio 1986 (p
145); No€ 1987 (D 152). 2 See below, ch. 11.

309

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

310 8. THE IMPERIAL FINANCES

The total annual cost of the imperial armed forces cannot be computed
with accuracy because of the mass of variable and unknown factors.
Most modern estimates of the average annual wage bill before Domi-
tian’s pay-rise would put it, if we include discharge bounties, at 400
million sesterces, at least.> Even if not fallacious, such estimates are
misleading. Because of the system of deductions at source from pay,
much of the theoretical wage bill was probably never paid in cash. On the
other hand, the total bill will have increased steadily as the number of
auxiliary units grew and their remuneration was regularized. Actual cash
expenditure also swelled when campaigns were mounted, probably
mainly to mobilize extra supplies — the slave dispensator for Nero’s
Armenian manoeuvres allegedly managed to siphon off 13 million
sesterces with which to buy his freedom.‘ In general terms, however,
military expenditure was kept artificially low insofar as conscription,
rather than the payment of attractive salaries, was used regularly to fill
auxiliary units and sometimes to fill legions.

The empire required administration, mostly in the spheres of finance
and law and order. Salaried officials were few — the senatorial governors
and legates and the slowly growing numberof equestrian procurators —
but their salaries were substantial, perhaps totalling over 50 million
sesterces per annum, and presumably were paid in cash; revenues were
also skimmed off by the increasingly numerous and permanent clerical
staff in their offices.5 However, many of the costs of administration were
hidden. The emperor, senators and town councillors throughout the
empire were meant to perform public functions at their own private
expense, an obligation which helped to justify and to reinforce their
economic dominance. As subordinates they would also use their own
dependants ~ which was initially the position of the familia Caesaris, the
imperial slaves and freedmen, although it came to live at least partly off
state revenues. The central government and its representatives also
employed seconded soldiers in civil police and administrative roles.
When transport, labour or supplies of any kind were required in the
public interest both central and local governments and their individual
representatives could commandeer virtually at will from the subject
population. The prime examples of this are the cursus publicus and the
uniquely well-documented local corvée obligations in Egypt.’

The empire had no economic or social programmes, but it still
incurred massive expenditure on public buildings and roads, on the
rituals of civic life such as sacrifices, games and banquets, on rewards to

3 Hopkins 1980 (p 133) 124-5; MacMullen 1984 (D 146).

4 Pliny, HN vit.129. 5 Frank 1940 (D 128) v.6. 6 Veyne 1976 (A 98).

7 Pflaum 1940 (D 153); Jones 1974 (D 137) 169 n. 96, 180; Mitchell 1976 (B 255); Lewis 1982 (E
945).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE IMPERIAL FINANCES 311

artists, athletes and educators, on minting coinage, and on ensuring a
reasonably regular supply of staple foodstuffs to its urban populations, in
short on producing and maintaining what we recognize as Roman
civilization. In the provinces and Italy this expenditure normally fell on
the local aristocracy, who were mostly, in this period, not unwilling to
bear it in return for the prestige and power which it conferred. In Rome
itself, though senatorial commissions to supervise public buildings and
facilities had been instituted by Augustus, who had also revived the
priestly colleges, a de facto ban on aristocratic initiatives had been
imposed to reduce the risk of challenges to imperial munificence.®
Senators could still, on defined occasions, give games, but all main
public buildings and facilities, the major festivals and the grain supply
became the responsibility of the emperor. From Augustus on, emperors
haphazardly extended their operations in this line to the towns of Italy
and the provinces, using tactics which included, for example, paying for
buildings through their relatives, and diverting or remitting imperial
taxes to local councils to aid municipal projects.°

Beyond this state munificence which was arguably necessary there was
the ad hoc liberality expected of all rich and prominent men in the empire,
and most expected of the richest and most prominent of all, the
emperor.!° Friendship with the emperor and his trust were demonstrated
in a courtier’s receipt of estates and other gifts in cash and kind.
Individual deeds had to be rewarded appropriately, whether a huge sum
to an important freedman or a few coins to a street poet. An emperor
could remit some of the taxes due from a city purely as a mark of his
favour; a Nero could remit those of a whole province. In an ego-
boosting display of superiority as well as of generosity the emperor
could throw to the Roman crowd tokens for mystery prizes including
cash and all kinds of objects. The range of imperial giving cannot be
described exhaustively, nor was it meant to be: ‘there is nothing that
might not be hoped for from my magnanimity’, said Nero.!! Since such
‘spontaneous’ giving was an integral part of the role of emperor as, on a
smaller scale, it was of local magistrates, it must be counted as an area of
state expenditure.

The cost of all this munificence, both necessary and spontaneous, is
impossible to compute. More important is its size in relation to military
expenditure. Under Claudius, for example, the draining of the Fucine
lake over eleven years is said to have employed 30,000 men (though
perhaps 30,000 was the aggregate total of man-days), and the estimated
costs of the new port at Ostia were expected to kill off his enthusiasm for
the project. There were other imperial building projects in Rome, lavish

8 Eck 1984 (D 39). 9 Bourne 1946 (D 115); Corbier 1985 (p 124); Mitchell 1987 (D 150).
10 Kloft 1970 (p 138). GCN 64 (lines 10-11).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

312 8. THE IMPERIAL FINANCES

shows and several handouts. The freedmen Pallas and Narcissus
between them allegedly accumulated a sum equal to one and a half years’
military budget.!2 It is likely that Claudius spent in and around Rome —
and necessarily in actual coin — as much each year as the army in theory
cost him, and in practice much military expenditure was notional since it
was covered by supplies in kind. If we allow also for civil expenditure
outside Rome and its environs, it is likely that the army, even if it was the
single largest regular item in the imperial budget, in this period
accounted on average for less than half of all imperial spending. The
claims in later Roman writers that the reason for taxation was the need to
pay for the armies which guaranteed peace have a propagandist whiff
about them.

To meet this varied expenditure the state had a correspondingly
varied range of assets and incomes. As heir to the ideology of the Greek
city-state, the Roman government did not subject its own citizens,
wherever they resided, to regular direct taxation on the person, and did
not tax its own ‘citizen land’ (i.e. that held ‘ure Ouiritium), which meant
mainland Italy and also the territories of Roman overseas colonies and of
provincial cities which enjoyed the ius Italicum.'3 As an imperial power
Rome levied direct taxes or rents on the rest of its subject lands and
populations. It is dubious whether any coherent legal justification for
this fiscal exploitation was elaborated under the Principate; instead
pragmatism ruled.!4 Where sophisticated pre-Roman fiscal systems
existed, mainly in the old hellenistic kingdoms, they tended to be
adapted and maintained, and more generally there flourished a defensive
ideology of fiscal minimalism (no new taxes, no increases to old ones).
But, starting in Egypt, Augustus introduced an annual poll-tax in cash,
Roman-style census arrangements gradually spread through the eastern
provinces, and Roman fiscality — and, with it, monetization — was
brusquely introduced to the northern and central European provinces.!5
Although the new regular provincial poll-tax allowed Augustus and his
successors to dispense with the irregular hellenistic capitation taxes
which republican governors had continued to levy on occasion and to
discontinue the revived triumviral levying of tributum in Italy, all Rome’s
subjects and even her own citizens remained liable to random summary
exploitation such as confiscation of land for colonies or veteran settle-
ment (not always to punish disloyalty), requisition of housing, animals
and supplies for the use of the military and the administration, and
conscription into the army.!6

In the early Principate different direct taxes, assessed on different bases

12 Thornton 1989 (F 594) chs. V-V1; Frank 1940 (D 128) v. 42, 57; Noé 1987 (D 152) 49-51.

'3 Neesen 1980 (D 151) esp. 19-22. 14 Neesen 1980 (D 151) 22 n. 4.
15 Brunt 1981 (D 118); Rathbone 1993 (£ 962). 16 See n. 7 above; also Brunt 1974 (D 171).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE IMPERIAL FINANCES 313

and according to different rates, continued to be levied from province to
province. Republican modes of thinking and terms persisted: the fiscal
value of a province was estimated as an annual cash sum, the word
vectigalia could still be used of all fiscal revenues, direct and indirect, from
a province, and stipendium of the totality of direct taxes from a senatorial
province. But a new categorization was developing: vectigalia often now
denoted only indirect taxes, and ¢ributum was used of regular direct taxes
(not, as in the Republic, of emergency cash levies), conceptually
subdivided into those assessed on land (tributum soli) and those assessed
on persons (tributum capitis). This was not a programmatic scheme for
standardizing direct taxation ~ indeed some scholars deny that capitation
taxes were levied in all provinces — but these terminological changes
reflect some attempt to simplify and improve the overall administration
of taxation and the loss by provincial governors of independence in fiscal
matters in favour of the central imperial government.'”

The collection of direct taxes was now mostly devolved to the
theoretically autonomous cities and tribes of the empire, each of which
was meant to produce a fixed annual sum of direct tax assessed in cash
terms. The elimination of tithes and of their collection by Roman
publicani in the Greek-speaking provinces seems to have been mainly the
work of A. Gabinius and Iulius Caesar. Both the tithe and publicani
persisted in Sicily, but neither Augustus nor his successors introduced
publicani to collect direct taxes in newly created provinces.!8 The total of
direct taxes due from each community was computed by multiplying the
taxable base — quantity of land and (probably) number of people — by the
relevant rates. In some cases this will have followed on a Roman census;
in others, presumably, it was simply what the city claimed was the
traditional figure, while for many tribes it must have been an arbitrary
guess. The city council (or tribal leaders) were obliged to make up any
shortfall in the aggregate sum due, but probably more often made a nice
profit, whether through extortion or because the actual taxable base had
grown since the original assessment. The job of the local Roman
financial official, the quaestor in a public province or the procurator in an
imperial province, must have been mainly to ensure that the total due
was paid on time, in full and (to introduce a further complication) in
acceptable proportions of cash and kind.

Although the total tax dues of provinces and communities were
usually expressed in terms of a lump cash sum, direct taxes on land were
often assessed and collected in kind, mainly wheat, rather than cash.
(Peasants presumably often paid local collectors in kind, and the
collectors sold the produce and made the payments to the government in

'7 Neesen 1980 (D 151) 25-9, 117-20.
18 Brunt 1990 (D 119); Jones 1974 (D 137) 164-8, 180-3; Cimma 1981 (D 121).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

314 8. THE IMPERIAL FINANCES

cash, but this is a different matter.) The early evidence from Egypt and
Britain for adaeratio, the commutation of wheat-dues for a cash payment
at a fixed official exchange rate, and the more widely attested government
purchases of grain (implying that, relative to needs, too much tax had in
practice been paid as cash rather than in kind), suggest that from the start
the Roman government could be flexible about the medium of pay-
ment.!9 The existence of an official exchange rate permitted the calcula-
tion and recording of taxes in cash terms whatever the proportion
actually paid each year in kind. No figure can be put on the average
annual empire-wide ratio between direct taxes collected in cash and in
kind, but probably more came in kind under the early Principate than is
conventionally assumed.

Many indirect taxes, called vectigalia, were also levied in the Roman
empire.2° The main category of these were customs-dues (portoria) which
were usually exacted at ports, on the imperial frontiers, at the boundaries
between provinces or groups of provinces, and sometimes at internal
boundaries within provinces. The rate on the eastern frontier was
apparently 25 per cent of the value of all goods; known inter-provincial
rates range from 2 per cent to 5 per cent. In Italy the imperial
government drew revenue from a 1 per cent auction tax (centesima rerum
venalium), a 4 per cent (originally 2 per cent) tax on sales of slaves, and the
tolls at the gates of Rome; it was also the recipient of the 5 per cent
inheritance tax (vicesima hereditatum) which applied throughout the
empire to Roman citizens of a certain wealth and without closely related
heirs, and of a 5 per cent taxon the value of slaves manumitted by Roman
citizens. In the cities of the empire other indirect taxes were imposed by
and benefited the local authorities.

The collection of imperial indirect taxes continued in the early
Principate as in the Republic to be farmed out to publicani. The old
censorial task of fixing the contracts and supervising their execution
must have passed to new imperial financial officials — in Italy this was
certainly one function of the prefects of the state treasury.?! In theory the
state conceded some profit margin to the contractors, but in practice the
system avoided extra bureaucracy and stabilized receipts. The relative
value to the imperial government of indirect as against direct taxes is
impossible to assess, but they were probably crucial to the imperial
finances. Being indirect they were politically easier to increase or invent
than direct taxes, and in fact all the new taxes imposed in the early

'9 Tac Agr. x1x.4; Neesen 1980 (D 151) 104-16; Brunt 1981 (D 188) 161~2; Rathbone 1989 (E 960)
173-4.

2 General: de Laet 1949 (D 140); Neesen 1980 (D 151) 136-41; see n. 18 above. Cases of Asia and
Egypt: Engelmann and Knibbe 1989 (8 229); Sijpesteijn 1987 (E 965); Wallace 1938 (E979).

4 Dio ux.10.3; Corbier 1974 (D 122); Millar 1964 (D 149); see nn. 18 and 20 above.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE IMPERIAL FINANCES 315

Principate were indirect. Other advantages were that they produced a
fairly immediate cash revenue, which in several cases was actually paid
over in Rome, and that Roman citizens, perhaps with the exception of
veterans, were not exempt. Indeed, if we except the landholdings of
Roman citizens in territories not exempt from ¢fributum soli, indirect taxes
were almost the only regular means of exploiting private Roman wealth
open to the imperial government.

The state also had fixed assets consisting principally of land, urban
properties and mines. In theory all ager publicus which had not been
granted away into private ownership still belonged to the Roman state
and bore a rent. It is unfortunately unclear how much remained, and
whether and how rents from it were collected, but it is known that the
government still farmed out to publicani the collection of fees, called
scripturae, for the use of public grazing lands in Italy, Cyrene and perhaps
elsewhere too. Many cities in their own right also owned and leased out
estates, not just in their own territories, and this category of public
ownership was constantly being increased by bequests from private
individuals. As regards other fixed assets of the state, public buildings
should perhaps be counted rather as financial liabilities. Temples,
however, contained treasures which could be ‘borrowed’ in times of
emergency, and warehouses, the shop areas in porticoes and other
functional buildings could be leased out by the civic authorities.

The possessions of the emperor himself, his patrimonium, must also be
counted as state assets.22 The emperor was not just another member of
the empire-wide wealthy elite who discharged public functions and
funded public projects out of their own private resources. Much imperial
property may have been acquired through private transactions such as
inheritance, personal gifting or purchase, and emperors made wills as if
they were private persons. However the imperial patrimonium passed
from emperor to emperor as part of the office rather than through
normal inheritance, as is patent in the cases of the emperors from Otho to
Vespasian but was perhaps first recognized on Gaius’ accession, whereas
no consul, for example, inherited his predecessor’s personal fortune.?3
Furthermore, the patrimonium gradually established its claim to a number
of ‘public’ sources of income, and although it was in theory managed
separately from the state finances, its personnel, both equestrian procur-
ators and imperial freedmen and slaves, soon became an integral part of
the state bureaucracy.

The basis of the patrimonium was the family estates, urban properties,
slaves and other possessions of the Iulii, Octavii and Claudii. Under
Tiberius the patrimonium in Italy was still modest, according to Tacitus —

2 Millar 1977 (A 59) ch. IV and Apps. 1-3; Rogers 1947 (D 154); Crawford 1976 (D 125);
Parassoglou 1978 (£ 956); Rathbone 1993 (E 962). 23 Bellen 1974 (D 112).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

316 8. THE IMPERIAL FINANCES

that is by senatorial standards; the comment implies significant growth
by the end of the century. Emperors were also from the beginning
massive landowners in the provinces. Augustus’ acquisition of substan-
tial estates in Egypt (known locally as ousiai) is a prime example; another
is Nero’s confiscation of ‘half’ of Africa.24 The patrimonium grew in ways
unparalleled by any private estate because the emperor’s position opened
unique avenues for increasing his possessions. Like any Roman noble, he
expected and received legacies from relatives and friends, but under an
acquisitive emperor the category of ‘friends’ could embrace almost all
the Italian nobility and some prominent provincials, especially client
kings. In the first century the patrimonium gradually usurped from the
aerarium the right to bona vacantia and caduca and bona damnatorum (that is
property with no known owner, usually because the former owner had
died intestate and without kin, property whose testamentary disposition
was legally invalid and property of condemned criminals). Since in
Egypt these had all fallen to the fiscus since annexation, this was clearly a
royal prerogative adopted from hellenistic practice. The patrimonium was
also the beneficiary of booty (#anubiae) from imperial campaigns, and of
the gold crowns sometimes spontaneously offered by communities to
mark victories. The emperor’s landed properties, like those of any noble,
contained sub-enterprises such as transhumant flocks, clay pits and
potteries, tanneries and textile processing facilities, urban craftshops and
so on. Under Augustus and Tiberius almost all mines not already run by
the state came into the hands of the patrimonium, and often if not
normally were put under military supervision, and new mines, like those
in Britain, followed suit. Some quarries too became imperial proper-
ties.25 In Rome itself the emperors had warehouses where they stored
everything from produce of their own estates to exotic gifts from foreign
embassies. There was also the palace, enlarged successively by each
Julio-Claudian emperor, together with the imperial gardens; though the
site and buildings were hardly saleable, the rich furniture and furnishings
represented a significant reserve of wealth. The contribution of the
patrimonium to the imperial finances cannot be quantified, but its political
importance is clear: it enabled emperors to claim that they subsidized
rather than exploited the state revenues.

These, in outline, were the resources available to the imperial
government to meet its expenditure. The last topic which must be added
before the management of the imperial finances can be discussed is the
imperial coinage and its production. The coinage of Rome as stabilized

4 Tac. Ann. 1v.6; Pliny, HN xviit.35.

28 Domergue 1990 (£ 216); Dodge 1992 (D 127) ch. 5.

26 Burnett, Amandry and Pipollés 1992 (B 312); Sutherland 1984 (B 357); Crawford 1985 (B 320)
ch. 17; Walker 1976 (B 361).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE IMPERIAL FINANCES 317

by Augustus in or by 19 B.c. was trimetallic, consisting of almost pure
gold and silver coins and a range of what is for convenience termed
‘bronze’ (or aes) coinage, though some pieces were almost pure copper
while others were orichalcum, an alloy of copper and zinc. In the system
established by Augustus the main coins in circulation and their official
relationships of value were as follows: the gold aureus, the silver denarius
of which there were 25 to the awreus, the copper as of which there were
sixteen to the denarius, and various fractions of the as; the normal unit of
account, however, remained the sestertius, equivalent to four asses,
though the actual (orichalcum) coin was rare. As regards weight, forty or
forty-two avrei were struck from one Roman pound of gold, and eighty-
four denarii from one pound of silver. These standards held until Nero’s
reform of a.D. 64. He retained the relative face values of the Augustan
system but struck forty-five avrei and ninety-six denarii respectively to
the pound. The silver content of the denarius was also reduced to an
average of 93.5 percent. Although Nero’s attempt to introduce a wholly
orichalcum ‘bronze’ coinage was a rapid failure, his system in its
essentials lasted until Commodus.

The various denominations in the Augustan-Neronian system were
minted in varying quantities, often discontinuously, from two main and
some minor mints. The mint at Lyons (Lugdunum) produced almost all
the imperial gold and silver coinage from 15 B.c. onwards until Nero (or
possibly Gaius) transferred production to the mint at Rome. From 23 or
19 B.c. the Roman mint produced most of the imperial ‘bronze’ coinage,
but in most reigns there were sporadic and sometimes heavy regional
issues of imperial type from provincial mints. Output of mainstream
imperial coin was supplemented by the issue of silver tetradrachms,
didrachms and drachmas by the mints of a number of Greek cities,
notably Ephesus, Pergamum, Caesarea (in Cappadocia) and (Syrian)
Antioch. These and other city-mints also produced sporadic issues,
occasionally quite large, of bronze fractions. Egypt had its own internal
coinage based on the Alexandrian tetradrachm. In the west local mints
had always been rare. Most were in Spain, they produced only bronze
coin, and those which survived Tiberius were shut down by Gaius. The
broad pattern of supply of coinage in the period as a whole is thus that
the mints at Rome and Lyons produced gold coins for the whole empire
and silver and bronze for all the western provinces; western silver coins
also reached the East but were outnumbered by the regional productions
there, and the eastern provinces were almost wholly dependent on very
locally produced bronze coinage.

Minting was essentially controlled by the emperor. Most of the
bullion used must have come from sources under imperial control — an
early example is the exaction of bullion in Gaul by Augustus’ freedman

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

318 8. THE IMPERIAL FINANCES

procurator Licinus, presumably to prime the new mint at Lyons.?7
Supervision of the state mints, at Rome at least, was again entrusted to
young senatorial tresviri monetales, whose full title (aere argento auro flando
feriundo) implies oversight of the production of all coins. Briefly under
Augustus they were allowed to choose the types for some issues, but that
was the extent of their independence. The letters ‘S.C.’ (senatus consult)
which appeared on Augustus’ new bronze coinage, and on some
provincial and some Neronian imperial issues, do not, it is now generally
agreed, indicate any continuing senatorial control of minting, but
advertise that this was the official Roman coinage, perhaps originally
with reference to a senatorial vote of approval for the new weight
standards of the Augustan system.”8 In the provinces many ‘local’
coinages, such as the cistophoric tetradrachms of the province of Asia
(which bore Latin legends), were in effect ‘imperial’ coinages. The mint
at Alexandria was under direct imperial control, and under Tiberius the
silver-weight of its tetradrachms was adjusted to match that of the
denarius; around the sametime Palmyra and the Jewish rulers were made
to bring their silver coinages into line. The closing of all the local mints
in Spain must indicate imperial intervention, and it is noticeable that
many sporadic eastern issues coincided with military operations in the
area.229 The emperor could control minting when and wherever he
wanted; that he sometimes allowed local initiative is not evidence for a
real division of authority. The emperor thus was in theory able to
regulate in broad terms the quantity and type of coinage in circulation;
the questions of whether and why he did or did not lead into the wider
issue of the management of the imperial finances in general.

Detailed quantification of coin production in the early Empire must
await systematic study of the number of dies used for each issue,
although even this will leave considerable uncertainty about the scale of
issues.30 Compared to earlier and later eras the surviving gold and silver
coinage of this period is relatively rare; significant quantities of the
heavier republican denarii continued to find their way into hoards
through to the end of the first century a.p. Augustus had to mint
extensively to establish his new system of bronze coinage, but there was a
drastic fall in production later: Tiberius and Gaius, for example, closed
the western provincial mints, and no imperial bronze was struck in the
first ten years of Nero’s reign. There is no evidence for regular recall and
re-minting of old coins (which would have been very expensive). Old
coins collected by the state were simply re-issued. The main sources of
metal for minting new coins were bullion acquired through taxation or

27 Dio tiv.21.

2 Wallace-Hadrill 1986 (B 362); Kraft 1962 (B 334); Griffin 1984 (C 352) 57-9, 120-5.
2 Crawford 1985 (B 320) 271; Howgego 1982 (D 134). »® Howgego 1992 (D 135).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE IMPERIAL FINANCES 319

confiscation and above all the mines which had rapidly fallen under
imperial control. It is therefore very likely that the overall stock of
coinage in the early Empire was constantly if gradually increasing.

The rationale underlying this pattern of minting is a controversial
topic.*! It is likely that the imperial government recognized some
political responsibility, incurred through its near monopoly of minting,
to maintain in circulation an adequate supply of the full range of
denominations. The rare but heavy issues of small denominations,
however, must be taken as one-off responses to particularly noticeable
shortages and thus as indicators of a lack of any forward planning. The
famous ‘crisis of liquidity’ at Rome in A.D. 33 tells the same story for the
higher denominations.2? Clearly there can have been no government
statistics for the volume of coinage in circulation, for any lump of gold or
silver, including coins of the Roman Republic and of the hellenistic
kings, could be used for exchange, while imperial gold and silver coins
could be hoarded or melted down as bullion. These considerations
undercut modern theories that changes in the rate of output and in the
weight and purity of the imperial coinage represent attempts to keep it in
tune with the changing market values of the uncoined metals; it is more
plausible that the ‘bronze’ was a largely token coinage from the start, and
that the denarius was deliberately overvalued in relation to the aureus so
that it had a token premium against gold which discouraged private
melting down of silver coins. Indeed it is very difficult to construct any
satisfactory economic explanation for Nero’s ‘devaluation’ of the silver
and gold coinage, the only major monetary adjustment in this period.
The common view that it was a device to stretch imperial funds is
unsatisfactory, partly because earlier heavier coins were not all driven
out of circulation, and mainly because it ignores the simultaneous
attempt to introduce an all-orichalcum aes coinage.*3 Nero was probably
trying to reform the whole monetary system for a mixture of administra-
tive and aesthetic reasons. Normally, however, emperors seem to have
thought little about minting, which was ordered primarily in response to
specific immediate needs. As long as the mines, supplemented by booty
and confiscations of bullion from individuals, continued to produce
sufficient new metal for minting, there will have been no obvious need to
worry about questions of policy.

State income and expenditure in cash in the Roman empire is best
visualized not as a massive annual ebb and flow of coin between the
provinces and Rome, but as a series of provincial whirlpools, some of
them spilling over into others and all being sporadically topped up from
the imperial mints at Rome and elsewhere. The whole system functioned

31 For example Crawford 1970 (D 126); Lo Cascio 1981 (p 144); Howgego 1992 (p 135).
32 Rodewald 1976 (B 348) ch. 1. 33 Bolin 1958 (D 113) ch. 4; Lo Cascio 1980 (D 143).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

320 8. THE IMPERIAL FINANCES

largely under its own momentum with little direct intervention from the
central government. It seems that, following republican practice, each
province had a ‘fiscus’ (literally ‘basket’, sc. for holding coins), a sort of
branch office of the main state treasury (aerarium). The chief task of each
fiscus was to receive and record the lump sums of direct and indirect
taxes due from the local communities and tax-farmers. It also had to pay
out for expenses in that province: the salaries of the governor and his
subordinates, any imperially funded building projects, and the cash costs
of the garrison if there was one.

In republican Rome the central state treasury, to which all state
revenues were in theory due and from which expenditure was made —
though in practice many transactions were handled entirely by the
provincial fisci ~ was the aerarium, located in the temple of Saturn. This
treasury continued to exist in the Principate, now called the aerarium
Saturnito distinguish it from the aerarium militare, the separate ‘military
treasury’ established by Augustus in a.p. 6 with the new and limited
function of paying the discharge bounties due to veterans out of the
revenues earmarked for them.» In addition to these public treasuries
formally constituted under senatorial supervisors, there existed the
originally private administrative organization of the emperor’s patrimo-
nium ox fiscus (as it was sometimes known), staffed by imperial slaves and
freedmen, which swiftly came to assume the leading role in the
administration of the state finances as a whole; hence the trend for fiscus
to supplant aerarium as the general term for the fiscal and financial centre
of the Roman state.

Admittedly the nature and origins of this imperial fiscus have been
keenly disputed.35 A common view is that a new imperial treasury called
the fiscus, separate from the patrimonium, was set up parallel to the
aerarium Saturni, probably by Claudius and perhaps together with the
creation of an ‘accounts department’ (a rationibus) of the imperial familia
headed by Pallas. Another suggestion is that this fiscus was a sub-unit of
the aerarium which, on the analogy of provincial fisci, handled the
finances of the emperor’s composite provincia. The evidence, however,
tells against any neat division between ‘imperial’ and ‘senatorial’ finances
and their control. Under Augustus the aerarium Saturni was credited with
the revenues of the new imperial province of Egypt, as was the aerarium
militare in A.D. 17 with those of Cappadocia; the aerarium Saturni
administered the financing of the vigi/es, the new imperial fire-brigade,
and continued to do so into the third century, and the aerarium militare
functioned independently into the same period.%* In the summary

¥# Corbier 1974 (D 122); Corbier 1977 (D 123); Millar 1964 (D 149).

35 Millar 1963 (D 148); Brunt 1966 (p 116); Jones 1930 (p 136); Rathbone 1993 (E 962).
3 Vell. Pat. 1.39.2; Tac. Ann. 11.42 (cf. 1.78); Dio Lv.26.5.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE IMPERIAL FINANCES 32t

account of the finances of the empire which Augustus left on his death,
along with his private will, he listed the cash in the aerarium, the cash in
the provincial fisci and the sums due from the tax-farmers.3’ Clearly no
new imperial treasury was officially recognized under Augustus, and
there is no good evidence for one under his Julio-Claudian successors.
The emperors were able to control state finances without diverting
revenues into a mew separate treasury.

The aerarium Saturni had no real financial independence. Although it
was supervised by senatorial officials, the changes from praetors selected
by lot to quaestors and then to ex-praetors chosen by the emperor are one
sign of subordination to imperial control.** The duties of these officials,
as under the Republic, and of the senatorial prefects of the aerarium
militare, were restricted to technical functions such as administering the
tax-farming contracts, investigating accusations of tax avoidance and
prosecuting defaulters; because this often meant dealing with upper-
class Italians, it was politic to employ officials of senatorial status.%? It is,
furthermore, unclear what revenues and expenditure continued in
practice to be accounted for — let alone actually received or disbursed —
by the aerarium Saturni. When Augustus, for example, drew up his
summary of the state finances, a large percentage of the sums involved
will have been in the fisci of imperial provinces under the control of
imperial freedmen or equestrian officials, and any cash he held in Rome
was presumably accounted for as being ‘in’ these fisci or as ‘due’ to the
aerarium. These sums, as well as not passing through the aerarium, had
apparently not been reported to its officials, for Augustus referred the
Senate for details to the members of his familia who kept the accounts.
These imperial clerks, technically the financial administrators (¢ rationt-
bus) of the patrimonium, were thus not invented by Claudius, even if he
was responsible for giving them a more formal ‘departmental’ organiza-
tion. This may have encouraged people to think in terms of an imperial
treasury based on the administration of the patrimonium, and hence called
the fiscus, and in practice the role of the aerarium Saturni may increasingly
have been confined to receiving the fiscal surpluses from public
provinces and revenues raised in Italy and to administering public
expenditure in Rome and Italy which was nominally under senatorial
control such as that on aqueducts and temple maintenance and rituals.

In some respects Augustus had behaved in the tradition of late
republican commanders, notably Pompey. There had not, therefore,
been any formal division of responsibility, and in theory the aerarium
Saturni remained the state treasury. In practice, however, the emperors
controlled all financial policy. After Augustus only Gaius ever again

37 Suet. Aug. 101.4. 3 Millar 1964 (D 149) 34-
% For example, the case of Claudius: Suet. Claud. 9.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

322 8. THE IMPERIAL FINANCES

offered any account of the imperial revenues and expenditure to the
Senate. Instead of the emperor’s agents reporting to the aerarium, we
must suppose that its prefects had to make their records available to the
imperial accountants who drew up overall statements of the state
finances for the restricted benefit of the emperor and his advisers. The
question of administration is really a red herring: Augustus and his
successors controlled the state finances by monopolizing the decision-
making on financial matters. More precisely state finances were depoliti-
cized by the death of republican politics — it was no longer open to
ambitious individuals to propose controversial expenditure (wars,
buildings, doles) or fiscal changes. Now a standing army received
automatic payment in cash and kind, the Roman populace had a
permanent grain supply laid on by the emperor, the provinces had a
system of regular taxation which for over two hundred years underwent
only minor adjustments.

The stability of Roman taxation at a level which, if it hurt individual
peasants, was low for each community as a whole is often used to help
explain the acceptance and support of Roman rule by the upper classes of
the provinces.“ But the proposition should perhaps be reversed: the
Romans were so dependent on this local co-operation that to avoid the
risk of disaffection they rarely dared to increase provincial taxation, and
its level constrained rather than was determined by imperial expenditure.
In the Julio-Claudian period expenditure on the army must have
increased gradually as auxiliary forces were turned into regular units.
Total state revenues, however, will also have increased as new areas were
converted into provinces subject to direct Roman taxation. The evi-
dence suggests that, outside Egypt, censuses were not regular and
neutral operations but occasional deliberate attempts to increase the
tribute assessments of individual provinces; if so, it would appear that as
Gaul developed economically, its tribute was increased.4! Similar
increases probably occurred in other relatively new and underdeveloped
provinces as, for instance, in Moesia under Nero through the settlement
of Transdanubians.* In the Principate, however, only Vespasian is
credited — and dubiously so — with widespread increases of tribute,
examples of imperial caution about the general level of provincial
taxation are numerous, and individual communities could petition for
reductions in their tribute assessment and doubtless frequently did so,
sometimes with success.

It is difficult to estimate the size and nature of the public profit made
from the provinces by imperial Rome. The situation can be pictured as
an outer ring of coin-hungry fisci of frontier provinces with large

4 Jones 1974 (D 137); MacMullen 1987 (p 147).
| Cf. Brunt 1981 (D 118), modified in 1990 (A 12) 533. 42 GCN 228.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE IMPERIAL FINANCES 323

garrisons which kept solvent by drawing on the cash surplus of the fisci
of interior civilian provinces.43 How much or little cash surplus this left
to be shipped to Rome is unknowable; against it must also be set all the
newly minted coinage injected into the provincial system. But the profits
of imperialism did not come only in cash. Direct taxes, although assessed
and accounted for in cash terms, were partly collected in kind. Thus, for
instance, insofar as soldiers received supplies in place of cash remune-
ration, the fisci of frontier provinces need not always have been seriously
short of coin; on the other hand civilian provinces may have produced
surpluses in kind rather than cash. More importantly, the one provincial
revenue which is certainly known to have been shipped to Rome is the
annonal wheat.

While the revenues which could be drawn in cash from the provinces
were limited, emperors were under constant pressure to spend munifi-
cently, especially in Rome. Tiberius was exceptional in his accumulation
of a large cash reserve, and Gaius’ immediate spending of it was almost
inevitable. Such savings undermined the justification for taxation, a
mentality which was in part the legacy of the republican system of ad hoc
financial arrangements, but in part derived from the emperor’s monopo-
lization of the control of the state finances. While emperors were happy
to take the credit for beneficial expenditure, they also had to face
personal criticism for the level of taxation, and preferred to spend rather
than save. There could normally be no centralized reserves of wealth at
all comparable to those, for instance, of the Achaemenid kings. It is also
clear why for emperors who wished or were obliged to fund major new
projects such as wars or building schemes and whose needs were
normally for ready cash, the income from indirect taxes, particularly
those raised in Italy, and that from the patrimonium had a special
importance. In effect needy emperors turned to the Senate (and other
rich nobles), whether it was Augustus instituting the 5 per cent
inheritance tax or the villain of later senatorial rhetoric, the emperor who
killed and confiscated to raise cash. The imperial wealth was enormous
but, through a combination of political weakness, difficulties of commu-
nications and transport and incomplete monetization, much of it could
not be mobilized effectively by the central government. Although the
period from Augustus to Nero saw an overall rise in expenditure which
was at least matched by an overall increase in revenues, the lack of central
reserves was a weakness embedded in the system from its inception and
one which was to cause problems for the rest of the Principate.

43 Hopkins 1980 (p 133).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 9

THE SENATE AND SENATORIAL
AND EQUESTRIAN POSTS

RICHARD J. A. TALBERT

I. THE SENATE!

There can be no question that the zos B.c. and the half century which
followed were a time of unparalleled change for the Senate and its
members. Augustus was its principal instigator. Once peace had been
secured after the long civil wars, the ‘restoration of the Republic’ was
one of his foremost aims. By definition that touched closely the central
institutions of the Republic, the Senate among them. The size and
quality of senatorial membership engaged his attention first. In size it
had expanded to 1,000 or more, partly because of numerous adlections
by Iulius Caesar as dictator, partly because following his death others
successfully used influence and bribery to gain admission by the same
means. Moreover, by raising the total of quaestorships from twenty to
forty, Caesar had doubled the number of new members each year, since
tenure of this junior magistracy in practice offered life membership of the
Senate. As early as 29 B.c. Octavian (as he then was) used a review of the
senatorial roll to exclude 190 members on one ground or another. It was

1 Since contemporary testimony is largely lost along with the Lex Julia of 9 B.c. which governed
procedure, the main sources of knowledge for the Senate during the Julio-Claudian period are the
later historical writers Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio — in particular Tacitus, who certainly
drew upon the detailed record of senatorial proceedings (acta senatus) for his Annals, although to
what extent and by what means remain matters of considerable dispute (Talbert 1984 (D 77) ch. 9;
Brunt 1984 (A 10)). Inscriptions and papyri make a growing contribution. An impression of the
nature and scope of senatorial legislative activity can be formed by drawing together material from
legal writers and elsewhere (Talbert 1984 (D 77) ch. 15 sect. 5). Seneca’s vivid sketch of the heavenly
senate in session on Olympus, presided over by Jupiter (Apoco/. 8-11), parodies its Roman
counterpart of which he was himself a member, and offers a rare piece of contemporary insight. If it
is accepted that Diocletian’s Curia in Rome (built near the end of the third century and still standing
today in a restored state) is in effect a reconstruction of the Curia Julia, then it is possible to observe
closely the meeting-place where most of the Senate’s sessions were held: see further A. Bartoli, Curia
Senatus, lo scavo e tl restauro (Rome, 1963).

Inscriptions are the main source for knowledge of senatorial and equestrian administrators and
their work. Significant in this connexion from Augustus’ reign onwards is the growing frequency
with which records listing all the offices a man had held were no longer inscribed just posthumously,
bur during his lifetime too (Millar and Segal 1984 (c 176) ch. 5).

Modern discussion: Talbert 1984 (D 77) offers a starting-point on most aspects; for senators and
their careers, see also Hopkins 1983 (a 46) ch. 3. Much relevant documentary material is assembled
in FIRA 1.

324
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE SENATE 325

probably also during the zos that he reduced the number of quaestor-
ships to the old figure of twenty. Either then, or during the ’teens B.c., he
took the consequential step of reducing the lower office holders (mostly
aspirants to the Senate, not yet members) from vigintisexviri (twenty-six)
to vigintiviri (twenty).

A Senate of about 800 still seemed too large. When Augustus returned
to the task of reducing it further by another review of the roll in 18 B.c.,?
his preference is said to have been for a body of just 300: the
simultaneous removal of as many as 500 members would thus be
required. Unless he was displaying an astonishing lack of foresight, a
more profound reappraisal of the role of the Senate would have been
called for next, since all the existing functions assigned to the corporate
body and its members could barely have been carried out by such a
reduced group. In the event, however, Augustus abandoned any drastic
aims of this type, and enrolled about 600 members by a peculiar method
which combined co-option and the drawing of lots. Thereby the Senate
returned to the approximate size which the dictator Sulla had made it. Up
to the end of the Julio-Claudian period there are known to have been at
least two more revisions of the roll during Augustus’ reign (around 13—
11 B.C. and in A.D. 4), anda third carried out by the emperor Claudius and
L. Vitellius as censors in A.D. 47/8. But in none of these instances does
there appear to have been further significant alteration to the size of the
membership. Rather, the regular number remained about 600, though it
should be understood that this figure was always just a notional
optimum, never a fixed maximum or fixed total. The normal method of
entry continued to be through the twenty annual vacancies in the
quaestorship. On present evidence at least, the alternative of ‘adlection’,
or direct elevation of a non-member to a grade of membership within the
Senate (at the emperor’s instigation), was only used very sparingly
indeed during the Julio-Claudian period.3

The quality of senatorial membership concerned Augustus, as well as
its size. As his conduct of the reviews in 29 and 18 B.c. demonstrated, he
was determined to rid the Senate of members who were immoral,
irresponsible, or lacking means. His purpose was to create a body which
should be an outstanding elite of princes — high-minded, statesmanlike,
wealthy. He waited until 18 B.c. to translate this ideal into reality. From
that time all members had to be worth at least one million sesterces rather
than just showing the modest equestrian census of 400,000, which was all
that had previously been required.4 He appreciated the strain which
would result, and over the years did help both worthy existing members
who could not show the increased amount, and many prospective

2 Dio tiv.13-15. 3 Demougin 1982 (p 36) 81-2.
4 Nicolet 1976 (D 53); Millar and Segal 1984 (c 176) ch. 4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

326 9. THE SENATE

entrants. Among Augustus’ Julio-Claudian successors similar assistance
is known to have been given by Tiberius (albeit sometimes in rather
grudging fashion) and by Nero.

Also from 18 B.c. in all likelihood, the old custom was abandoned
whereby every prospective entrant wore the distinctive badge of the
senator — the broad stripe (/atus clavus) on the tunic — even before he had
ever gained the lowest senatorial magistracy and actually joined the
corporate body as quaestor.5 In future this was to be the exclusive
privilege of those senators’ sons who chose to follow in their fathers’
footsteps. Other young men seeking to become the first members of
their family to enter the Senate could certainly pursue this quest, as ever,
but they could not wear the coveted /atus clavus until they became
quaestors.

This particular way of marking out senators’ sons and encouraging
them to emulate their fathers was one of Augustus’ many experiments
which did not endure. The restriction had evidently come to be
disregarded by the 30s a.p. at the very latest. Instead the practice
developed whereby all equestrian aspirants to a senatorial career were
obliged to gain the emperor’s permission to wear the /atus clavus. How
selective successive emperors were in their consideration of such
applications is completely unknown. None the less it is clear that
Augustus’ experiment formed part of a wider effort to exalt not just
senators themselves, but also members of their families, whom he
actually defined for the first time ever as a separate, superior ‘senatorial
class’.

The class first appears formally in Augustus’ marriage legislation of 18
B.c., and of course it did endure. Membership belonged to senators and
their descendants to the third generation, plus wives. Once a distinct
class had been formed on this pattern, it was natural for a haphazard
growth of privileges and restrictions to become attached to it. Among
privileges, special front seats at shows and a certain precedence at
elections were introduced early; limited exemption from particular local
obligations may also have been granted.6 Among restrictions, a series of
bans on marriage with the lowest classes, prostitution, and appearances
in shows or on stage, were all intended to maintain the dignity of the
highest class in society.’

Regardless of how they gained the /atus clavus, all those intending to
pursue a senatorial career had to undertake the cursus honorum as reformed
by Augustus.® Tenure of one of the twenty minor offices in the
vigintivirate bestowed annually by the emperor was now made a

5 Chastagnol 1975 (D 33); Saller 1982 (F 59) 51 n. 58; Talbert 1984 (D 77) 513.

6 Millar 1983 (D 101) 88-90. 7 Levick 1983 (c 369) 97-115.
8 Morris 1964 and 1963 (D 51).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE SENATE 327

compulsory prerequisite. Either before or afterwards a limited period of
service in a legion as ¢ribunus militum was recommended, though it was
never compulsory and was often omitted by those of aristocratic
background. Entry to the Senate itself was gained by election to one of
the twenty annual quaestorships, for which a candidate had now to have
reached his twenty-fifth year (previously the qualifying age had been
thirty). Thereafter, notionally with minimum intervals of just over one
year between each magistracy, plebeians had first to hold one of the six
aedileships or ten tribunates (patricians were excused this stage); next all
competed for the praetorship, which could not be held before a
candidate’s thirtieth year (previously thirty-nine or forty). The degree of
rivalry sharpened at this vital stage, depending upon the number of
praetorships, which it was the significant prerogative of the emperor to
fix from year to year. Augustus at first permitted as few as ten praetors
each year, and even by the end of his reign seldom more than twelve. Asa
result, at this date an average first-generation senator could take pride in
having climbed even this high. Augustus’ Julio-Claudian successors
became somewhat more generous (not least because the range of duties
assigned to senators of this rank was extended), so that by the end of the
period the total of praetorships seems to have been fluctuating between
fourteen and eighteen. None the less the risk of rejection was still a real
one.

Beyond the praetorship a minority of favoured senators could sooner
or later proceed on to the highest magistracy, the consulship. Both the
number of consulships each year, and the choice of holders, in effect
quickly came to be a choice for the emperor alone to make. Initially there
was no more than one pair of holders for the entire year on the traditional
republican pattern. But from 5 B.c. these two ‘ordinary’ consuls, who
retained the prestige of opening the year, were regularly replaced by one
or two further pairs of ‘suffect’ consuls at variable intervals, with the
result that up to six men were permitted to attain this distinction within a
single year. Thereby competition for it became less intense, and there
were more members eligible to occupy posts reserved for senators of this
standing. Certain highly distinguished men might be privileged to enjoy
the supreme honour of a second, and even a third, consulship.

In time Augustus formed the opinion that it was not just the
membership of the Senate which required his attention, but also the
workings of the corporate body. His revival of fines for non-attendance
in 17 B.c. is an early sign of his impatience with members who failed to
match up to his ideals. Though in theory a presiding magistrate had
always had authority to fine absentees, not since the second century B.C.
perhaps had it been normal practice to do so, with the result that this
clumsy measure by Augustus merely served to give offence. Only in 11

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

328 9. THE SENATE

B.c. did he act further, when he formally abolished the quorum of 400
which was still required for any measure passed to be valid. In all
likelihood it dated back to Caesar’s dictatorship, but must have been a
dead letter ever since the reduction of the membership to 600 in 18 B.C.

The abolition at least cleared the way for positive reform in the shape
of the comprehensive /ex Iulia de senatu habendo (9 B.c.), which was
intended to regulate every aspect of the Senate’s workings. The principal
purpose of the law was seemingly to improve levels of attendance, which
had for some time been giving Augustus cause for concern. To this end
fines were increased, but they proved as ineffective as ever, and were
quietly dropped, never to be revived. Quorums (a modest 200 is the only
one known)? were introduced for every kind of business: in themselves
they were no novelty, but never before had they been laid down so
comprehensively. Even more important was the innovation of fixed days
for meetings, the Kalends and the Ides of each month, so that members
would know to set these aside for attendance. As some alleviation, for
the four stated meetings of the holiday months, September and October,
the law did permit no more than a quorum chosen by lot to be present,
while the likelihood is that perhaps two stated meetings were normally
cancelled around our Eastertime, when traditionally there had been a
recess (res prolatae or discessus senatus). However at all seasons special
meetings in addition to the stated ones could be called, if necessary at
very short notice. It was equally in connexion with regulating attendance
that the law made two further provisions. First, it required a list of all
senators’ names to be displayed publicly and updated each year. Second,
it introduced a ‘retirement age’ for senators. Previously the formal
position had been that every member was obliged to keep up his
attendance for life. Augustus appreciated that it would be neither
practical nor sensible to insist upon this, and thus had the law stipulate
that members were no longer required to come beyond the age of sixty or
sixty-five (it is not known which). All the same, they were still welcome
to come voluntarily, and many did.

Beyond all this the Lex Iulia codified senatorial procedure. That really
did represent a new departure, since previously the proceedings seem to
have been governed almost exclusively by custom, rather than by
written statute. So it was probably now for the first time that features like
the order in which opinions were to be asked for, or the manner in which
a vote was to be taken, were actually written down. Such codification no
doubt appealed to Augustus’ sense of order. Even so it is striking that he
does not appear to have exploited the opportunity to change procedure
much. In practice meetings seem to have beed generally conducted in
just the same way after 9 B.c. as before. There is no foundation to the

9 FIRA 168 col. V lines 106-7.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE SENATE 329

modern claim!® that the law in some way curtailed the ancient right of a
member, when called upon for his opinion (senfentia), to speak first
without time limit on whatever subject he chose (egredi relationem). This
right was retained and was still exploited.

Of course what neither the Lex Iulia nor any other law ever codified
was the position of the emperor in the Senate. His presence was a major
new feature to which the corporate body had to adjust from the 20s B.c.
All emperors were patrician senators and must have headed the list of
members during their reigns, though Augustus alone of the Julio-
Claudians took the title princeps senatus (from 28 B.c.). In his case, too,
formal difficulties were few before 23 B.c., since he was always consul
and frequently out of Rome. Thereafter, however, the need was felt to
offer him the guaranteed opportunity of bringing forward one item at
any stage of any meeting — what has been dubbed somewhat inaccurately
the ius primae relationis — as well as authority to summon the Senate as
often as he pleased (in theory he could already do this by virtue of his
tribunicia potestas). In 19 B.c. he was granted the right to sit on the
president’s tribunal at meetings, in between the two consuls. At some
stage, too, as early as Augustus’ reign, there was recognition (not
necessarily formal perhaps) of a unique right of the emperor to have
business put forward by letter rather than in person. All these privileges
must have been conferred upon subsequent emperors on their accession.

At least up until a.p. 8, when old age compelled him to reduce his
activities, Augustus showed the Senate respect by attending not just as
president, but also as a private member. The one meeting which we
know him to have missed deliberately was the occasion in 2 B.c. when the
discovery of his daughter Iulia’s scandalous behaviour had to be made
public: in his shame he could not face the Senate in person, but sent a
letter instead. Unfortunately the source-material is lacking which would
allow us to build up a picture of his participation and performance at
meetings in the way that can be done for Tiberius through Tacitus’
Annals. In general, however, it is clear that he did take an active enough
part in debate, although two major difficulties in this connexion quickly
made themselves felt.

The first was the nature of members’ reaction to the superior position
of the emperor, which might take the form of respect, or fear, or
resentment, according to different individuals’ viewpoints. These feel-
ings sprang from a variety of causes: the knowledge that in practice
nothing which the emperor requested or openly supported could be
refused; the recognition that every senator’s advancement depended in
large measure upon his approval; and the realization that control of
many key spheres of government had effectively become his alone. Even

10 Mommsen 1888 (A 65) 111.2. 940.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

330 9. THE SENATE

many of the Senate’s meeting-places were now powerful symbols of the
imperial regime — the Curia Iulia, begun by Iulius Caesar, dedicated by
Octavian in 29 B.c., and thereafter adorned with a growing number of
monuments and dedications in honour of the emperor and his family; the
temple of Apollo on the Palatine, close by the emperor’s residence; and
from 2 B.c. the temple of Mars Ultor in front of which was sited a great
statue of Augustus victorious in a chariot. Under such circumstances,
and in such surroundings, members came to feel, more or less willingly,
that it was pointless any longer to take an active, critical, independent
part in sessions, when the result seemed a foregone conclusion, and no
more than officially selected extracts from the detailed record of
proceedings — acta senatus, instituted by Iulius Caesar in 59 B.c. — were
now permitted to be made public. In addition certain matters of the
highest importance were never even referred to the Senate at all. It is
hardly surprising that the only two known instances of open senatorial
disagreement with Augustus were cases where he perhaps expected
opposition to be voiced anyway — a request to have not one colleague,
but two, whenever he held the consulship, and an offer after his illness in
23 B.c. to read out his will. Perhaps more characteristic were the
meetings under Augustus’ presidency where frustration at members’
reluctance to formulate independent opinions led him to call names at
random rather than in the customary order of seniority.

Despite Augustus’ efforts to counter the trend, this understandable
reluctance was to persist indefinitely. Tiberius’ impatience with it as
emperor prompted his allegedly regular exclamation on leaving sessions
‘O homines ad servitutem paratos’, ‘O men ready to be slaves!’.!! It must
be reflected again by the otherwise unknown Titius Rufus whose claim
that ‘the Senate thought one way and voted another’!? led to his
indictment in A.D. 39; and there is no doubt that it was a principal target
of the consular Thrasea Paetus, who consciously risked Nero’s disap-
proval by his outspoken encouragement of greater independence on the
part of fellow members in the late 50s and early 60s. The most vehement
attack on such senatorial reluctance, however, is made in the speech of an
unidentified senator (in all likelihood the emperor Claudius) preserved
on a papyrus fragment:

If these proposals meet with your approval, Conscript Fathers, say so plainly at
once, in your own considered words. But if you disapprove, find another
solution, yet do so in this temple, or, if you perhaps want a more generous
interval in which to think, take it, provided you remember that, whatever the
place you should be summoned to, you must give us your own opinion. For

"1 Tac. Aan. 111.65. 12 Dio 71x.18.5.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE SENATE 331

Conscript Fathers, it is most unbecoming to the dignity of this order here that
just one consul designate should deliver a sententia, and even this drawn word for
word from the re/atio of the consuls, while others utter the single word adsentior,
and then when they depart say ‘Well, we spoke’.3

Even where the emperor took care not to express a view, his relatives
(who generally pursued senatorial careers) might still be regarded as
speaking for him. Thus in a.p. 13, when alternatives to the 5 per cent
inheritance tax were under discussion, Augustus specifically forbade
Germanicus and Drusus to make any suggestion, for fear that it would
be regarded as his, and adopted without more ado.

The second main difficulty which acted as a curb on the freedom and
vigour of senatorial proceedings in Augustus’ reign was his introduction
some time between 27 and 18 B.c. of a consilium to consider items of
business in advance of their being laid before the full corporate body
(distinct from the consilium principis, for which see p. 290). It must be
acknowledged that this committee was intended to have no more than
such a preparatory function. Yet for all Augustus’ efforts to uphold that
aim, members in the full Senate would hardly have been human if they
still did not suspect that they could exercise only the most limited
influence after the ‘real’ debate had already occurred in the committee,
and the ‘real’ decisions had been taken there. Under such conditions few
members were going to have the appetite for a wide-ranging, frank
discussion in the full Senate. Their worst fears can only have been
confirmed in A.p. 13 when Augustus (now in extreme old age) had the
membership of the consilium reformed and its decisions granted authority
equal to that of the full Senate.

In a pithy summary Tacitus later wrote of Augustus ‘drawing to
himself the functions of the Senate, the magistrates and the laws’.14
There is a large measure of truth in the allegation: even though not only
Augustus but also all his successors studiously derived their formal
authority from the Senate, it did still have to adjust itself to a curtailed
prerogative. Of course many traditional functions remained. The Senate
legislated actively, and its resolutions came to be recognized as law
without the need for confirmation by a popular assembly. Honours were
bestowed in greater quantity and variety than ever. The Senate’s
authority in matters of religion was still accepted as supreme, and it
continued to be approached by embassies, albeit in reduced numbers. On
the other hand the emperor in large measure reserved to himself matters
relating to the army and foreign affairs; public finance; and the adminis-
trative oversight of a large group of existing provinces, together with
that of all new ones. In consequence the Senate lost for ever the major

13, FIR.A 1 44 col. Ill lines 10-22. M4 Ann. 1.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

332 9. THE SENATE

prerogative (already challenged formidably in the late Republic) of
determining the disposition of the state’s military forces year by year and
the extent of the territory to which it laid claim. The creation of
supervisors for roads, aqueducts, the distribution and supply of corn,
and for other concerns (treated further below), in practice represented
further encroachment upon its formerly exclusive authority.

However, despite the fact that the republican Senate had seldom
shown more than the most desultory concern for such matters, Augustus
was still scrupulous in arranging not just for the new officials to be
appointed by the Senate, but also for their activities to be authorized by
it. He likewise constantly informed and consulted the Senate about
military, provincial, diplomatic and financial affairs, in addition to
inviting its approval of significant changes or unusual expedients in
these spheres.!5 In many instances it may be that this was not merely tact
or caution, but rather that he was genuinely seeking to hear a range of
proposals, to test opinion and to mould his reaction to it, as well as
ensuring reasonable acquiescence in whatever might finally be decided.
More than anyone Augustus knew how vital it was that he should not
lose touch with upper-class opinion or seriously alienate it. Yet however
open to advice he might appear, it always remained awkward for
members to be confident of his purpose, or to judge the point at which
they might be considered to have overstepped the mark in risking a frank
statement of views. In this dilemma the majority preferred to take no risk
at all, and the Senate as a deliberative body suffered.

Altogether Augustus’ impact upon the Senate proved a mixed one. He
showed it the greatest respect. While reducing the size of the member-
ship, he raised its moral and social standing, he promoted regular
attendance by a variety of means, and codified (though hardly altered)
procedure. But for all his assiduous consultation of the Senate, and his
avowed encouragement of frankly expressed opinions, it was impossible
for members to ignore his overriding supremacy in the state and his
effective usurpation of certain major senatorial prerogatives. The sena-
torial consilium, especially after the strengthening of its authority in a.p.
13, acted as a further discouragement to the corporate body.

Tiberius’ impact was equally mixed. Up to a point in the case of the
Senate, as elsewhere, he merely continued Augustus’ approach. While
this is by no means an unfair assessment, it perhaps fails to give due
weight to our sources’ emphatic claim that the widest possible range of
issues, public and private, great and small, was brought before the Senate
by Tiberius, at least in the earlier part of the reign. Discreet warnings
against such openness from Augustus’ confidant, the eques C. Sallustius

1S Brunt 1984 (D 27); FIRA 1 99 tines 1-7.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE SENATE 333

Crispus, were ignored. Moreover the Senate could feel that it enjoyed
greater freedom to handle all this business, following the radical step
taken by Tiberius on his accession: he was not content merely to reduce
Augustus’ senatorial consilium to its status prior to A.D. 13, but actually
abolished it altogether. As a result the primacy of the full Senate was
quite unexpectedly reasserted.

The Senate received a further boost during the early weeks of
Tiberius’ reign when elections to magistracies were transferred to it
from the popular assemblies (though the latter continued to meet for the
purpose of ratifying the choice of candidates). To what extent this
development was an idea of Augustus rather than of Tiberius is obscure:
but on present evidence there is no sign that the former ever wanted to
do more than give the upper classes a prominent role in assembly
elections, while at the least there can be no question that the timing of the
change must have been decided by Tiberius.'© The Senate, of course,
gained no formal power from it. Neither was there any relaxation of the
existing constraints imposed upon both candidates and voters by the
emperor’s interest. For the consulship he continued to support as many
candidates as there were vacancies. For all other magistracies, however,
his candidates would usually comprise no more than a proportion of the
vacancies, so that there was genuine, fierce competition for the remain-
ing places. Thus the transfer still gratified members, and did offer the
corporate body a regular, active function to which much significance
was attached.!7 The details of how far in advance magistrates were
elected thus in the Julio-Claudian period, and at what times of year,
remain almost a blank: in all probability no set pattern emerged until a
later date. An attempt by Gaius to return the elections to popular
assemblies was frustrated by senators and soon abandoned.

Even more welcome to members was the trend which Tiberius more
or less consciously encouraged whereby the Senate should exercise a
regular jurisdiction as a high court.!8 It had never done this during the
Republic nor during the reign of Augustus. Rather, in his scheme of
things this function was to be fulfilled by the jury-courts (quaestiones),
which he overhauled and added to, and in which he gave senators an
established place; in addition, from 4 B.c. certain charges of extortion
(repetundae) might be heard by small panels of senators. Only for needs
and cases beyond the normal routine did Augustus occasionally turn to
the full Senate — in particular cases where his own prestige and interest
were closely involved, or where the complexity or novelty of the issues
were beyond the competence of a quaestio. In the earlier part of Tiberius’
reign such formerly occasional referral became so frequent as to

'6 Brunt 1961 (c 47); 1984 (D 27) 429. '7 Talbert 1984 (D 77) 202-4 and 341-5.
18 Bleicken 1962 (p 248); Garnsey 1970 (F 35); Talbert 1984 (D 77) ch. 16.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

334 9. THE SENATE

constitute regular jurisdiction, while many more repetundae cases were
considered to require a hearing before the full Senate rather than mere
reference to a small panel. The trial of Cn. Calpurnius Piso in a.p. 20 for
the murder of Germanicus may have been a turning-point. According to
Tacitus,!? Tiberius himself openly acknowledged that it was exceptional
to bring the case before the Senate rather than a quaestio. Yet from the 20s
there remains no doubt that the senatorial court was well established,
and the likelihood is that the guaestiones for treason (maiestas) and
extortion (repetundae) became practically defunct in consequence.

Established senatorial procedure required little adaptation to
accommodate judicial hearings, especially as the Senate had long been
accustomed to entertaining pleas and applications, and adjudicating
disputes. It is unlikely that its regular jurisdiction was ever sanctioned
formally by law: none was necessary if the development enjoyed the
emperor’s support. While in theory the Senate as a supreme legislative
body claimed the right (unlike a guaestio) to hear any charge and to fix any
penalty, certain conventions quickly developed. The Senate became the
principal court chosen to take cases of maiestas and repetundae in the Julio-
Claudian period. Otherwise it normally confined itself to cases where
individuals of high rank were involved; where the issue was particularly
serious or scandalous; or where an affair attracted a special degree of
public attention. Thus, for example, the Senate was a natural choice of
court to hear adultery cases where persons of high rank were implicated,
and where there might be associated charges, not to mention delicate
political overtones. It was equally well fitted to investigate the collapse
of an unsafe amphitheatre at Fidenae in 27 which caused catastrophic loss
of life among the spectators: this resulted in the banishment of the
builder, a freedman, and the drafting of regulations to prevent the
recurrence of such a disaster.

' The further convention seems to have developed that the emperor
remained aloof from repetundae trials, according the Senate complete
freedom to decide these as it pleased — a detachment which represented
no special sacrifice on his part. It could only be otherwise with cases of
maiestas, however. These were often brought to the emperor in the first
instance and only referred to the Senate on his initiative. Since by
definition they did touch his own safety and interest, he considered it
important to make his views known and to have them adopted by
whatever means might prove necessary. As a result the Senate was
seldom left free to decide such cases, and bitterly resented the inevitable
imperial interference, especially when the defendants were from the
senatorial class. It became a major tragedy of Tiberius’ reign that he did

19 Ann. U1.12.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE SENATE 335

less and less to control the bringing of maiestas charges. Moreover in any
politically sensitive case he was above all concerned to see his own
wishes met, rather than to encourage senatorial independence.

No less harmful was his withdrawal to Capri in 26, which turned out
to be permanent. Up till that time his attendance — at debates and trials, as
president and private member, even on election days — had been
outstandingly conscientious. He had participated actively in proceed-
ings too — suffering insults, being drawn into embarrassing exchanges,
and even on occasion finding himself outvoted. Taken together with his
other measures this behaviour understandably increased the Senate’s
confidence in the nature and value of its role, so that the effect of the
emperor’s isolation from the corporate body after 26 was all the more
damaging.

Gaius’ declaration”® at his accession that he would never write to the
Senate (and thus by implication would always attend in person) did
indicate a fleeting initial reaction against Tiberius’ behaviour during the
previous eleven years. But it was left to Claudius to make a serious effort
in this regard. While perhaps never as assiduous as Tiberius had been, he
did none the less regularly attend meetings and trials, both as president
and private member, and was an eager participant, bringing much
business before the corporate body. He seems also to have been
exceptionally severe in insisting upon good attendance by others. The
ban on unauthorized private travel beyond Italy (and after 49 Sicily and
Narbonese Gaul) by senators was stringently enforced. Nero’s personal-
ity and lack of experience led him to attend the Senate much less than
Claudius, in particular towards the end of the reign when he became
more and more estranged from it. But strikingly Vitellius’ background
and training led him to revert to the example of Augustus, Tiberius and
Claudius. Tacitus?! notes that during his brief reign in 69 he made a point
of attending the Senate even when the items on the agenda were only
trivial.

Of all the emperors between 37 and 69 it was Claudius who made the
most lasting impact upon the Senate by widening its membership. It is
true that he stressed to the Senate itself the desire of both Augustus and
Tiberius ‘that there should be in this cwria all the flower of the colonies
and municipalities everywhere, namely good men and rich’.” Yet in
making such a claim he appears to be over-generous. Even though Iulius
Caesar had introduced a few provincials, both Augustus and Tiberius —
whatever may have been their ideal — in practice seem to have continued
this trend no more than cautiously. Despite the favour regularly shown

2 Dio Lix.3.1. 21 Hist. 11.93. 2 FIRA 1 43 col. II lines 2-4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

336 9. THE SENATE

by emperors to respectful senators of distinguished ancestry, many old
families soon ceased to be represented for a variety of reasons.2 As a
result there was room for a steady influx of novi homines, or first
generation senators, who at this date were still mainly Italian. There was
evidently no shortage of aspirants except for a limited period during the
’teens B.c. New patricians were created by both Augustus and Claudius.
But it was only because of further initiative by the latter that provincials
became in any way a notable element in the membership of the Senate.
Even then, the great majority of these newcomers originated from the
West of the empire: by contrast, not until after the Julio-Claudian period
did more than a handful of easterners have qualifications and contacts
which encouraged them to put themselves forward.

Hostile emperors like Gaius and Nero inflicted no more than short-term
damage upon the Senate as a corporate body. For by the latter part of
Tiberius’ reign reform of its membership and workings was complete,
while its functions had been satisfyingly enough redefined within the
new constraints which the Principate imposed. In the spheres of
legislation and jurisdiction the Senate remained notably busy. Meetings
might last the entire day from sunrise to sunset; even so, many were
required beyond the minimum of two each month prescribed by the Lex
Iulia. Such miscellaneous attendance and voting figures as survive range
from respectable to high?5 and are all the more remarkable in view of the
considerable proportion of members who would always have to be out
of Rome on official business or had reached the ‘retirement age’. Debate
was often sharp, and participation in it by no means confined just to the
two highest grades, consulares and praetorii, who were consulted first.
Great pride was taken in senatorial membership, and there was evidently
never difficulty in attracting fresh aspirants, or in inspiring loyalty to the
institution on the part of those who were elected. Moreover, even
though the Senate may no longer have exercised much formal power, its
members individually and collectively still exerted a decisive influence
upon all the empire’s affairs. While in one sense the well-being of the
Senate, like everything else, remained painfully dependent upon the
emperor’s pleasure, in another the attitude of Augustus and Tiberius
during their long reigns set a standard which senatorial opinion could
ever afterwards demand that each of their successors maintain. These
values were strongly advocated by senators and to a significant extent
observed by responsible emperors, very much to the benefit of the
corporate body and its prestige. Thus, as Tacitus’ has Otho emphasize
in the most high-flown surviving statement of the Senate’s significance

23 Hopkins 1983 (a 46), ch. 3. 24 Halfmann 1979 (D 44).
25 Talbert 1984 (D 77) ch. 4 sect. 2; Gonzalez 1984 (B 234) 76. 2 Hist. 1. 84.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SENATORIAL POSTS 337

for Romans, it was the institution which continued to be seen as the
permanent embodiment of the ancient respublica.

II. SENATORIAL AND EQUESTRIAN POSTS

No princeps, however active, could run the empire single-handed.
Moreover the administrative functions fulfilled by the annual magis-
trates elected at Rome were deliberately curtailed in scope. It is true that
they continued to preside over a variety of courts there, and that
quaestors acted as financial officers in the ten or so senatorial provinces.
In addition three magistrates in office acted as mint supervisors, while
between 23 B.c. and A.D. 56 there were others who administered the state
treasury in Rome. But that was about all. For everything else the
emperor had to seek assistance, principally from the upper classes. Here
the role of senators was an outstanding one. The individuals invited to
advise the emperor in his private consilium would be drawn largely from
their ranks. Their formerly exclusive privilege to govern provinces and
command legions was barely infringed either during the Julio-Claudian
period or long afterwards. These were two functions of vital importance
which alone by a.p. 68 called for the services of over fifty members at any
one time, nearly all of them consulares or praetorii (men who had been
consul or praetor respectively); further senators would accompany
governors as legates.

The proconsuls of the senatorial provinces were still chosen according
to the traditional method of the lot to serve for just a one year term,
which would normally be expected to begin between our Easter and
mid-summer. The arrangements for drawing lots, and the timing, are
mostly obscure. Appointment as proconsul of Africa or Asia came to be
offered to the senior consulares who had not held either post already. In
this instance, therefore, once the two men eligible and willing to accept
appointment had been identified, the drawing of lots was confined to
deciding which province each would take. It may be that a broadly
similar procedure was followed in the case of other proconsulships too,
all reserved for praetorii (although tenure of more than one such post was
permitted). Since there were as many as eight posts to be assigned thus,
the lot could operate very much at random, and it does seem to have been
left to do so. Such instances of individual manipulation as have been
suspected appear exceptional; the same applies to extended terms of
office.27

Apart from these ten or so proconsulships, all governors and all
legionary commanders were appointed by the emperor to serve for as
long as he required. The same in effect applied to most of the new

2 Talbert 1984 (D 77) ch. 10 sect. 5 and App. 8.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

‘O'a ZL UT Yeap

sty 03 Jord syeak AyUaM) J2A0

asn( 303 eddu3y Aq Ajpeusoyur

pasiozaxa Aapiqisuodsas

ay) UlEUTEW OF AIJOYINE
[e323] poiue73 sem przog

porsad uerpnel)-orn{
ay) sarepisod ATuteyza9 ysouye
4010.49 [EIJOJEUIS [ENPLAIpUt

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUQ aSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

$1 ‘ary wioyy
WJO}J M3U UT paindtsuT
-o1 Auaueuzed

aolyo steyaIy

9 ‘a’v WOly

‘Oa 11 WOT

SESDINSUOI OTIS 1

ssosavad §

yUBs Josso]

JO JOIeUAS 1 ‘sHLsOJaId

1 ‘srspqnsuos 1 Bursiszdwios
“yo Aq uasoyp ATfeuonou £

(snisn3ny

JO [03}U03 IDa7IP ay) Jopun

Asauz0J) syJOYyoo ueqin 2234)

aya jo puewwos pur ‘swo0y
UI JepIO PuE MET JO IYZISIZAO

Asnseoy3 Aseqpiu jo wowaseueyy

awoy
jo sionpanbe jo qwawaSeuey

(23nIsqo suTeWas suOTDUN}

ccl@dN SN.LODATAV Ud
STV .LITIN
TNVaaV SO.LOaSa Vd

«WNUVNOV YOLVUND

UE 0} Speos UlEW paweEU sI0U uontsodwos jo adoas astza3d y8noy))

JO 2UO JQ IUDWUTIssE JENBoy ‘od OF WOT] ureqaoun jo psvog Ayeay Ul speos jo wowadeuepy aWNUVIA YOLVUND

‘D'a gi Ul poppe yoy Aq auoy elONVd ILLNAaWn dd
230w z “Oa t7 WOlyz uesoys Ajyeuonou ‘srs0javad 38 IOP UIOS Jo VOFNIIISIC] SN.LODAS Vud

2a1yo ut ssoysaenb pue

ssoyaerd Aq 9$ ‘a'v put ‘oa 9$ ‘av sINUNLvs
£z UsemI0q INO patssed UONDUN, wo3j pus ‘oa £z 07 6z sssojavad & Asnsea33 a183s jo luswaseuey «= ITYWV WAV SN.LODAAV Ud

Sysoway 0q yurs pur s2qwnny UONjIUN. TF YT

joj] puv auoy urgpim sisod jorsojouas many 1 atquy,

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUQ aSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

“ti—o1€ (LL a) 6961 UIqIeL g& “$b_LE1 (€L a) £561 Jeger] oc “($b a) g£61 puowweELy ‘WY o¢ “LEOLE IA TID 11-6665 '266 OTT oc
‘pf gz (o$£ 5) 2661 UOPION ¢ *bL1 ‘2161 Zp ‘(6% a) 6561 xnopey Aq mataal ‘(91 a) 9561 DONITA ¢¢ 1-0L$ (zt1 a) 161 J9IqI0D x
“(L$z a) £61 Aqusy ‘966 “bpy -unu03.4 j¢ “€ -y> (gf 3) 6L61 HO og L-bfz (go1 a) £961 wep gz “g-olb (zt1 a) 6461 391qQI07) gz
JSON,
pouod uerpnep
Orn aya JdIye paasaye ATUO st 6z ‘ary s8ujpooz0sd [vz0yeUas
(sassossaonb © kq) anuai ye[nday ur ‘290 parsaie Aju yuBs UMOUAUN Jo I JO p30221 ayi jo Jodaay aSA.LVNAs SLLDV AV

$1 -a‘v
wo3j AjuTei29 sow Yy
OJaQY JO Jey) 03
udjaz smasndny Ul 22k]
WoOgj ISOW J prIsaNy

sniz9qi1,

Japun paysaie AUD

snizaqiy, 30 snasn3ny
Jaya Aq painasuy

Stapjnsuoy & KQ papery pue
yoy Aq uasoy> ATfeuonou ‘Ss

Stapjnsuos & Kq papery ‘$

(saapjnsuos Aypeuszou) &

(durpooy
jO JaZuep onpos 02 sensed

ul) J9qLL J9ATY JO paq
pus syueq oy jo DUBUDIUTBA]

$p3o2a3 D11GQnd jo quawWaseUEW

Ausadoad
2783S YIM UOMIUUOD UI
ssouisng [elsipnl jo uorsiasodng

sored pus syz0m a1Qnd pus
sZuIpling pozdes jo.3usWaseuEW]

oSTWSaLl MHATV LA
WOYVd YOLVUND

AANNUVOTTANd
WAV INdVL
YOLVUND

ssWNYOAGNVOICNI
WNwOorTand
WNYODOT YOLVUND

nWNYOorland

ANOWNAOIOT

wnwado

La WNUVUOVS
WNIdgav YOLVUND

340 9. THE SENATE

senatorial posts within Rome and Italy established on a permanent basis
by Augustus and Tiberius, albeit with the Senate’s approval. Although
these posts (set out in Table 1) without doubt represent a haphazard
growth, rather than a planned series, none the less all were equally
intended to improve public services and thereby strengthen the em-
peror’s own position. At the same time the creation of one or more posts
with a particular responsibility did not deter him from still taking
personal initiatives in the same sphere from time to time.

Not only did adjustment and experiment continue, as Table 1 shows.
Senators might also be called upon at any time to assist in tackling some
short-term crisis or difficulty. But all the same it can be seen that the
substantial group of new senatorial administrative posts within Rome
and Italy was largely organized by early in Tiberius’ reign. To some
extent the same may be true of the new posts throughout the empire to
which equites were appointed, although the ancient sources’ lack of
interest in tracing the development of the equestrian service usually
makes it impossible to claim with confidence when a particular post was
instituted.%

Already during the late Republic certain officerships in the army were
normally held by eguites (a small number of whom would advance to
pursue senatorial careers). Augustus increased the opportunities for
military service of this type, so that in time there developed the pattern
whereby most legionary tribunates and all auxiliary prefectures were
reserved for equites; some prefects of fleets were also equestrian (the
others being freedmen). A limited proportion of all these officers were
ex-centurions who had gained equestrian status through working their
way up to the primipilate; but the majority were equites by birth, newly
recruited into the army and likely to serve there for some years. It seems
to have been understood that such military service would be required of
any eques who aspired to a civil appointment in the emperor’s service.

Like any republican magnate Augustus needed procurators to manage
estates which he could not see to himself and to represent him in the
courts. He generally asked egustes to fulfil this function, and from the
beginning of his reign he must have had such representatives in most, if
not all, provinces. In senatorial provinces (where a quaestor was
stationed) the procurator’s function was technically confined to the
administration of the emperor’s private property. Even during the reign
of Augustus, however, procurators in imperial provinces took on a
wider role, handling public money and commanding troops; some were
actually put in charge of a region or even an entire province, answerable
either to the nearest army commander, or to the emperor direct. Most

39 Hirschfeld 1912 (D 13); Stein 1927 (D 66); PAlaum 1950 (D 56); 1960-1; 1982 (D 59); 1974 (D 58).
Many of Pflaum’s dates for the creation of new posts should be viewed with caution.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SENATORIAL POSTS 341

notable among the latter was the prefect of Egypt, who was regarded as
the senior equestrian official during the Julio-Claudian period, and
whose immediate subordinates (even the commanders of the two legions
stationed outside Alexandria) were all equites.49 Some enlargement of the
procurator’s role inevitably developed in senatorial provinces too, and it
must have been as a reflection of this general expansion that Claudius
gave all his procurators jurisdiction in fiscal cases.4! Indeed by his day
there was even one eques who believed that in occupying posts normally
given to members of his class he could achieve the same degree of wealth
and influence as a consularis.*2

In Rome Augustus handed direct command of the praetorian cohorts
to a pair of equestrian prefects from 2 B.c. A few years later crises in two
spheres prompted him to tackle their persistent problems much more
decisively than hitherto. First, after a serious fire in A.D. 6 he took the
step of appointing an equestrian praefectus vigilum who commanded a
force of 7,000 freedmen to combat fires. Though ostensibly experimen-
tal,#3 this innovation soon became a permanent feature. Second, a severe
shortage in the same year led him to appoint a pair of consulares to
supervise the corn supply in two successive years; then at some date
between a.D. 7 and his death in 14 he put the task in the hands of an
equestrian praefectus annonae, whose office was permanent.“ There is
reason to believe that an equestrian prefecture of vehicles in Italy may
also date from Augustus’ reign,*5 while it was certainly from early in the
Julio-Claudian period that equestrian assistants (adiutores) of various
grades came to be attached to many of the senatorial and equestrian
administrative officers mentioned above.

It should be stressed that the growth of all these equestrian posts was
as much an unco-ordinated response to immediate problems as in the
case of the senatorial appointments already outlined. There was no
equestrian ‘civil service’ whose members were guaranteed permanent
employment within a planned career structure which encouraged them
to develop a particular expertise. Augustus’ general reasons for turning
to the equestrian order for the assistance which he sought seem easy
enough to conjecture. On the negative side, it might not have been
diplomatic to appoint senators to some of the posts concerned, even had
there been sufficient members of their class; there may have also been
instances where senators’ competence was doubted. On the positive
side, while equites ranked below senators (and could thus accept orders
more readily), they had always been inextricably linked with them; a

“0 Brunt 1975 (E 906). 4) Brunt 1966 (p 87); Alféldy 1981 (D 23).
42 Tac. Ann. xvi.t7. 4 Dio Lv.26.4-5.
* Pavis d’Escurac 1976 (D 55); Rickman 1980 (E 109). 45 Eck 1979 (E 38) 88-94.

Brunt 1983 (D 26).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

342 9. THE SENATE

favoured few were even numbered among the emperor’s closest
advisers. In addition as a group equites, like senators, were wealthy,
educated, and conservative in outlook. Many had experience of public
life as jurors, contractors and municipal magistrates, as well as through
army service. In general they were an obvious recourse for the emperor
in his search for administrative assistance.

All the same it is less easy to be sure why he specifically chose members
of the equestrian class to occupy particular posts. In Rome for example,
the prefectures of the fire brigade and of the corn supply (both spheres
formerly of general concern to senatorial magistrates) could seemingly
just as well have been senatorial appointments. Among provinces it is
impossible to find convincing general characteristics which distinguish
the diverse areas entrusted to equites from those continuing to be
governed by senators. Even in the case of Egypt the claims of later
ancient writers,47 that the country was too turbulent and altogether
represented too great a security risk to be safely assigned to a senator,
hardly ring true, all the more so in view of the alarm created by the first
prefect, the egues Cornelius Gallus. As to the choice of equites to fill
procuratorships, the modern contention that the background of the class
enabled its members to draw upon unique expertise in the areas of
finance, trade and manufacture may seem an unsatisfactory oversimplifi-
cation, which overlooks the fact that most eguifes were no more than
owners of large estates, and that the type of expertise attributed to the
class is not hereditary. Any assumptions that equestrian officials would
generally prove more honest in their conduct than senators, as well as
displaying greater loyalty to the emperor, are equally misplaced. It is
worth recalling in this connexion the point made above that equestrian
adiutores came to be attached to both senatorial and equestrian admini-
strative officers. While their appointment may have been intended in part
to provide a check on malpractices, it is equally likely that the burden of
work carried by their superiors did genuinely call for some assistance.

It may be more satisfactory to admit that Augustus’ motives for
choosing to employ equites in the way that he did can no longer be
identified with any certainty for the most part. At the least, however, his
concern must have been to ensure that each individual responsibility was
tackled in the most effective manner at the time, rather than that
assignment of posts to members of different classes should conform to
some general system or theory. Later, Augustus’ successors in all
likelihood just continued to appoint to most posts men of the same class
as the retiring holders, partly out of respect for established practice, and
partly because no pressing cause to overturn existing arrangements was
apparent. Exceptionally, towards the end of the Julio-Claudian period

7 Tac. Aan. 11.59; Hist. 1.11; Dio 11.7.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SENATORIAL POSTS 343

pressure did develop on a number of grounds for eguites to be appointed
to senior positions in the emperor’s secretariat, which hitherto had
normally been given to freedmen. Although the shift itself only occurred
later, it does at least serve to highlight in conclusion the extent to which
the ambition of equites had grown within the relatively short span since
their first employment by Augustus. It confirms, too, their willingness to
serve the emperor and their full appreciation by this date of his boundless
prerogative as patron and ruler.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 10

PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION
AND TAXATION

ALAN K. BOWMAN

I. ROME, THE EMPEROR AND THE PROVINCES

The reorganization of provincial government which began with Au-
gustus’ so-called first settlement in January 27 B.c. gave to the imperial
administration in the provinces a fundamental structure which it was to
retain for more than three centuries. Its basis can only be fully
appreciated in the light of the developments of the late republican
period.! In the East the Roman organization of Greece and Asia had
taken advantage of the urban legacy of hellenization and set the pattern
of which the far-reaching arrangements of Pompey’s eastern settlement
were a logical extension. Here, the ubiquitous phenomenon of organiza-
tion through the hellenized po/eis, based on specific and definable
relationships between the city and the ruling power, was to find its
clearest expression, whilst the military and fiscal interests of Rome
knitted diverse communities into a loose provincial structure. In the
West, Spain, Africa and Narbonensis required a longer period of
development and acclimatization to Roman rule, accelerating noticeably
only in the last three or four decades of the first century B.c. and drawing
in their wake the newly acquired regions of Gallia Comata. If East and
West differed in pace of ‘Romanization’ and in many a significant detail,
the broad objectives did not: the need to encourage or create civilized
and self-sufficient communities (whether based on polis or civitas)
governed by their indigenous aristocracies; the need to ensure Rome’s
military security and the protection of her imperial interests in the broad
sense, the cost of which would be met (at the least) by the revenue which
Rome could draw from the province enjoying her protection; finally, asa
natural corollary, the need to support and promote the interests of
Romans in the provinces, senators and equites at the top of the social and

' See CAH 1x?, ch. 15. The evidence for provincial administration under Augustus and the Julio-
Claudians is mainly inscriptional, supplemented by scattered references in the literary sources. No
attempt is here made to provide exhaustive documentation. Care is needed in using the more
abundant documentary and literary sources for the period from the Flavians to the Severi which are
likely to reflect a more highly developed provincial administration than that which existed between
43 B.C. and A.D. 69. Some later items of evidence are cited in what follows, but only those which seem
unlikely to be seriously anachronistic.

344

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND THE PROVINCES 345

economic scale, then negotiatores, veteran colonists and increasing
numbers of assimilated provincial Roman citizens. For all this the visible
and effective support system lay in the military establishment, the
institutions of provincial and civic government, the power of Rome’s
currency, the increasing dominance of her economic interests, and the
gradual spread of Roman law.?

The patterns of provincial government established in the late
Republic certainly survived the triumviral period, although it is difficult
to see whether the political and military disturbances entailed any long-
term disruption on more than a local scale. From the point of view of
Roman magistrates and officers serving in the provinces, the arrange-
ments enunciated in the Lex Titia of 27 November 43 B.c. and emended
after Philippi offered the triumvirs the opportunity to exercise patronage
and appoint supporters to provincial governorships and legateships; the
more general implication was the evolution of ‘spheres of influence’
which gave them access to the military and financial resources provided
by the provinces in their areas.3 But it would be mistaken to deduce from
this that either the constitutional power or the influence of a triumvir
was limited by any ‘iron curtain’. Antony might write to the £oinon of
Asia on the subject of privileges enjoyed by athletes and artists, but
Octavian was also able to maintain his close relationship with Aphrodis-
ias-Plarasa in Caria, to bestow personal privileges on the naval captain
(nauarchos) Seleucus of Rhosus and to issue an edict on veteran privileges
whose beneficiaries were not confined to one part of the empire.‘ But the
solicitude of a triumvir for Rome’s subjects was not universal even in his
own area; some communities suffered from neglect or from inability to
enlist effective aid and support, as is suggested by the evidence for
internal faction and belated reparation for damage caused in the Asian
cities of Aphrodisias and Mylasa during the invasion by Labienus and
the Parthians.5

The enduring administrative arrangements made at the beginning of
27 B.C. will certainly have owed something to the experience of the
previous fifteen years, even though it was politic to suppress any overt
appeal to triumviral precedents. The assignation to Augustus of a large
provincia, with leave to govern it through senatorial legates appointed for
terms determined by the princeps, might rather have recalled the Spanish

2 Calculation of the revenue to be derived in return for protection is explicit in Strabo tv.5.3
(2000), reflecting that Britain would need a legion plus cavalry forces to ensure collection of tribute
and the expenditure on troops would equal the revenue. On the spread of currency and economic
interests in general see Crawford 1985 (B 320) ch. 17.

> App. BCiv. 1v.2.7, Dio xLvt.55.3-56.1.

4 Antony to the &oinon, RDGE $7; Seleucus, RDGE 58; veterans, FIR.A 1 56; Aphrodisias,
Reynolds 1982 (B 270) nos. 6, 10, 12.

5 Reynolds 1982 (B 270) nos. 7, 11, 12; Mylasa, RDGE $59, 60.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

346 10. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

governorship of Pompey the Great in 55 B.c. As defined in the first
instance, Augustus’ province was to include Spain (though Baetica was
soon removed), Gaul, Syria, Cilicia, Cyprus and Egypt (governed, since
30 B.c. by an equestrian praefectus personally appointed by the princeps).®
Within a few years Cyprus and Narbonensis were to be returned to the
control of proconsuls, selected by the traditional lot for annual gover-
norships and by the end of Augustus’ reign Illyricum, now reorganized
to form the provinces of Pannonia and Dalmatia, was in the emperor’s
hands.’

New provinces, by their very nature, demanded assignation to the
emperor. Distinctions of rank existed within the categories of governors
of ‘imperial’ and ‘public’ provinces, the major military imperial pro-
vinces being entrusted to men of consular status, the lesser to praetor-
ians, the Senate appointing ex-consuls only to Africa and Asia, ex-
praetors to the remainder. For those imperial provinces normally
entrusted to equites, the prefecture of Egypt was perhaps the prototype;
others were governed by men whose positions evolved from military
praefecturae or civil procuratorships, becoming assimilated under the
general title of procurator in the reign of Claudius. These governorships
were in no constitutional sense reserved for men of equestrian rank — a
freedman could be appointed deputy-prefect of Egypt and there is no
evidence that Pallas’ brother, Antonius Felix, was elevated to equestrian
rank to hold the prefecture of Judaea.8

It is essential to emphasize that under Augustus and his successors
practice remained flexible. It allowed provinces to be governed in
groups, a province to be transferred from the control of a proconsul to
that of a senatorial /egatus Augusti or an equestrian governor (or,
occasionally, vice versa), to place public and imperial provinces under a
combined governorship, to allow a province to be ‘upgraded’ from
equestrian control to that of a legate or from a praetorian to a consular
legate, to recognize, in adjacent provinces, although perhaps only in
special circumstances, the superior status of the /egatus Augusti of the one
to the equestrian praefectus of the other.? There are obvious differences
between the categories of governors in length of tenure and method of

6 Dio Lit.12; Baetica was transferred to the Senate probably soon after 27 B.c., see Mackie 1983 (E
753) 353-4. 7 Dio wi.12.7, Liv.4.1, Thomasson 1975 (D 110) 1 87ff.

8 Strab xvil.3.24~5 (839-40¢); Egypt, Tac. Aan. x1t.60.3, Dio tvitt.19.6, Philo, In Flace. 1.2;
Felix, Tac. Ann. x11.54. The use of the term ‘senatorial’ to refer to provinces governed by proconsuls
is here deliberately avoided, in favour of the word ‘public’ which more accurately reflects Strabo’s
assertion (/oc.cit.) that these were the provinces of the people.

9 [llyricum, divided into Pannonia and Dalmatia, was transferred from proconsuls to legates, as
was Macedonia (see above, n. 7); Sardinia was governed by proconsuls, then praefecti, then
Proconsuls again in the Julio-Claudian period, Lycia-Pamphylia was transferred from legate to
proconsul in the second century (Thomasson 1975 (D 110) 1. 275ff); Moesia combined with
Macedonia and Achaea, Tac. Aan.1.80.1, Dio tvitt.25.4; Thrace, Noricum and Raetia were at first

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND THE PROVINCES 347

appointment. Legates and procurators, appointed directly by the prin-
ceps, normally enjoyed a tenure of several years; proconsuls were
appointed by lot and served for one year, although there are isolated
examples of prolongation and of appointment without the lot (extra
sortem). Beyond that, powers and responsibilities tended to become
increasingly assimilated (this had been the purpose and effect of the law
regularizing the position of the equestrian prefect of Egypt'®) and
proconsular independence of the emperor is all too easily exaggerated.

The evolution of this ‘system’ shows that the implications were far-
reaching, although not in any sense which imposes a misleading division
of the empire into two halves or two separate methods of government.
Augustus could have claimed, if he were ever asked, to be entitled to act
in his own and in the public provinces in virtue of his consular imperium
until 23 8.c.; a consular decree of Augustus and Agrippa was certainly
applicable in the province of Asia not long after 27 B.c. Thereafter he
might claim to act by virtue of the lifetime grant of imperium proconsulare
maius. But the renewal of the grant of the provincia in 18 B.C. (and at five-
and ten-year intervals thereafter until the practice lapsed after A.D. 14)
seems to show that at first the imperium was in principle separable from
the territories assigned to him.!! That these were all regarded, at least in
the beginning, as provinces of the senatus populusque Romanus seems
evident if we accept Velleius’ implication that Egypt’s tribute was
properly the revenue of the aerarium, Tiberius’ censure of his legates for
not sending reports on their provinces to the Senate, or the fact that the
operation of the emperor’s Special Account (Idios Logos) in Egypt could
be affected by regulations made by the Senate.'!2 On the other hand, there
is abundant evidence to show that, in fact, business from both public and
imperial provinces tended to gravitate towards the emperor as the most
clearly identifiable and effective source of power. The first of Augustus’
Cyrene edicts can just as naturally be taken to show this as any implied
exercise of imperium maius, since it clearly shows the Cyreneans taking the
initiative by consulting the princeps, and it is noteworthy that Tiberius,
by contrast, thought it appropriate in similar circumstances not to
handle the business himself or in conjunction with the Senate, but to
allow the Senate an illusion of its traditional functions (émaginem
antiquitatis) by remitting to it embassies from cities in proconsular
provinces.!3

governed by procurators, then transferred to legates in the second century; for the relationship
between the prefect of Judaea and the legate of Syria see Joseph., AJ xv111.88—9, xx.132, BY 11.244
and Schirer 1973 (£ 1207) 1. 360-1. For the status of the provinces in a.p. 69 see Table z.

10 Extended tenure of legateships: Tac. Az.1.80; proconsul appointed extra sortem: GCN 237;
Egypt: Tac. Ann.xit.60.3, Ulpian, Dig 1.17.

) RDGE 61 (Cyme). Dio tit.16.2-3. 12 Vell. Pat. 1.39.2, Suet. Tib.32, BGU 1210, praef.

13 EJ? 311.1-40, Tac. Aan. 111.60.3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

348 10. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

Growth in the emperotr’s influence and control may also be illustrated
by observing his relations with governors. In 22 B.c. public embarrass-
ment was caused by Augustus’ role in the misbehaviour of the proconsul
Primus in Macedonia, brought to book for waging war on the Thracian
Odrysae outside his province.!4 Obscure though the details of the affair
are, it is evident that Augustus’ advice to Primus carried so much
authority that it might have helped him avoid conviction for treason
(maiestas); what was potentially embarrassing to Augustus was the
alleged intermediary role of his nephew Marcellus. But later the
emperor’s control of governors could easily be exercised overtly. He
could intervene, when convenient, in the sortition of senatorial
governorships; Augustus’ explicit refusal to criticize a proconsul of
Crete and Cyrene for despatching a provincial to Rome suggests that he
could easily have done so had he thought it appropriate; in the reign of
Claudius, an inscription yields explicit evidence that the emperor might
furnish senatorial proconsuls, as well his own legates, with imperial
instructions (mandata) and this may well have been the case under
Augustus. It is worth noting, conversely, that the prolongation of
legateships by Tiberius looks from its context as if it may well have been
discussed in, or at least reported to, the Senate.!5

The gradual establishment of patterns of control was as much a
process of trial, adaptation and evolution as design. The flexibility is
most obvious in the emergence and definition of new provinces during
the early Principate but it is no less significant in those acquired earlier.
An established province could be defined as a specific geographical area:
sometimes its boundaries were clearly delineated by natural features, but
often there was no clear border, and then the province would be defined
as comprising the communities in it and their dependent ferritoria. Anew
province could be delimited (confirming or modifying the area orig-
inally assigned to a military legate with imperium) and given a guberna-
torial structure, a military establishment, developing communication
routes and a tax assessment. Various features (none of them universal)
might further emphasize the unity of a province: the existence of a
charter (/ex provinciae), defining the basis of taxation, the military
establishment and, in broad terms, the nature of local government; the
governor’s provincial edict setting forth his intentions in administ-
ration; the encouragement or creation of a koinon or concilium, a federal
representative assembly for the communities of the province, with a
particularly important role in the organization of imperial cult.

On the other hand, the picture is far from uniform within the
provinces, except for certain broad features of the military establish-

4 Dio iiv.3.1-4; for the uncertainty over the date see above, p. 84.
15 EJ? 311.40-5$5, Tac. Aan.1.80.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND THE PROVINCES 349

ment. In many provinces, even those of long standing, the degree of
military control was incomplete in less civilized regions; there could be
no blanket of administrative organization and hence the role of the
towns and cities was crucial. The provincial superstructure did not cut
across or invalidate other pre-existing or developing institutions and
relationships; rather, ‘Romanization’ went beyond simple intrusions like
the building of arteries of communication or the introduction of the
Roman currency and encouraged the persistence or development of
certain kinds of institutions, fostering and moulding the relationship
between Rome and individual community, between disparate elements
within the provincial communities. Thus, established city-foundations
in the eastern provinces might have their subjection to Rome tempered
by a treaty written in the language of ‘freedom’ or of ‘friendship and
alliance’, their aristocracies encouraged to undertake the burdens of civic
government in return for the prospect of prestige and social advance-
ment.!6 Even in the less urbanized province of Egypt, the district capitals
(metropoleis of the nomes) assumed some of the features of the Greek
poleis — magistrates and a ‘Greek’ gymnasial class.!7 Local laws (nomoi)
would be allowed to subsist in many places, survivals of pre-existing
laws, religious and judicial institutions like the Athenian council of the
Areopagus or the Jewish Sanhedrin. Where ‘freedom’ was maintained,
the lives of the citizens might largely be conducted according to local
law, but the civic magnates could easily be made to see that the
‘independence’ of the community was at the disposal of the ruling
power.!8 Even a city like Palmyra, on the fringe of the empire in the early
Principate, had accepted Germanicus’ instructions on the details of
payment of local taxes in cash; if there was a precise moment at which it
became integrated into the province of Syria, it is not clear when that
was.'9 An example of firmer and more overt extension of control can be
seen in the west with Corbulo systematically imposing ‘senatus, magis-
tratus, leges’ on the borders of Gallia Belgica in a.p. 47.70

Roman control did not end at provincial boundaries. As important as
the patterns of control within provinces, from the point of view of the
consistent desire to create the conditions for further annexation of
territory, are the tentacles which reached out beyond the frontiers, signs
of a presence designed to impress Roman power upon tribes and client
kings. The methods used outside provinces hardly differed from those
used inside and must surely have emphasized the insignificance, in
important respects, of the frontier between ‘Roman’ and ‘non-Roman’

'6 RDGE 26, Reynolds 1982 (B 270) no. 8. "7 See below, p. 696. 18 Tac. Ann.ut.60.6.

'9 CIS 11.3.3913.181-6 (Greek text), Matthews 1984 (E 1037)(translation); on Palmyra’s status see
J.C. Mann in M.M. Roxan, Roman Military Diplomas 1978-84 (ICS 1985), 217-19.

20 Tac. Ann.xi.19.2-3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

350 10. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

territory. In Germany, for instance, occupation of military sites in
sensitive areas beyond the frontiers is probable for a few years after the
defeat of Quinctilius Varus and the loss of three legions in a.p. 9, and
again in A.D. 47, but it is only part of the story. Neighbouring tribes
supplied soldiers; Segimundus, the son of a Cheruscan chief, was
appointed priest of the imperial cult at Ara Ubiorum, though still
domiciled on the east bank of the Rhine, and Arminius’ nephew Italicus
was educated at Rome in the reign of Claudius; ¢. a.p. 2/3 the governor
Aelius Catus, perhaps legate of Moesia and proconsul of Macedonia,
transplanted 50,000 Getae into Thrace, Aelius Plautius Silvanus settled
more than 100,000 transdanubians in Moesia in the reign of Nero; in
Juba’s Mauretania there were twelve Roman veteran coloniae, founded
between 33 and 25 B.c. and attached to Baetica for administrative
purposes; in 4 B.c. auxiliary units of Gauls were operating in Herod’s
Judaean kingdom.?!

For provinces and their towns, villages and individual subjects, as for
client kings and tribal chieftains, the embodiment of Roman power and
authority was in practice inescapably and increasingly identifiable as the
emperor. It is important to emphasize that he was far more than a mere
figurehead, for his administrative role was always an active one. His
position as a magistrate could be invoked (if it were ever necessary) to
justify the issuance of edicts and epistulae addressed to specific provinces
and communities within them, and imperial pronouncements in these
forms soon hardened into a central feature of the development of a body
of administrative law for the provinces. Pronouncements of a general
nature which illustrate the emperor’s role as an executive on a broad
front are relatively few: the Augustan measure establishing a new
procedure for extortion cases is in the form of a senatus consultum but
the imperial edict which prefaces it makes the emperor’s central role
clear; imperial edicts guaranteeing the privileges of the Jews or of
veterans, or regulating the system of vebiculatio (requisitioned transport)
are not limited by civic or provincial boundaries and retain validity
beyond the lifetime of an individual emperor until they are explicitly
modified or superseded or occasionally, if in danger of being over-
looked, reiterated.?2

It is not difficult to see how groups of communities and individual
communities and persons naturally perceived the emperor as the prime

21 German forts: Schénberger 1969 (E 591) 151, Tac. Aan.x1.19.7; soldiers: Tac. Ann.1.56.1;
Segimundus: Tac. Aaz.t.57.2; Aelius Catus: Strab. vit.3.10(303¢) (for the conjectured date see Syme
1971 (E 702), 40-72, at 53-5, J.H. Oliver, GRBS 6 (1965), 51-5); Silvanus GCN 228; colonies in
Mauretania: Pliny, HN v.z, 5, 20-1, cf. Mackie 1983 (E 753); Gauls: Joseph. BY 1.397.

2 Extortion: EJ? 311.72~141; Jews: Joseph. AJ x1x.286.91; veterans: FIRA 1 56; vebiculatio:
Mitchell 1976 (B 255) (= AE 1976, 653), cf. GON 375, 382.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

STRUCTURE 351

focus of power and tended to direct embassies and requests to him,
normally, though not always, through the filter of the governor, as the
most natural source of effective action and patronage. This impression
will have been further reinforced by the evident interests of the emperor
and his property (patrimonium) in many provinces and areas. Imperial
reaction by verbal decision or rescript thus also became a central feature
of the growing corpus of law and regulation. How much of the actual
decision-making was done by the emperor in person (as opposed to the
palatine bureaucracy), how much was action and how much reaction
does not alter the significance of the role. As the volume of business
naturally increased, provincial officials multiplied; a matter brought to
an emperor’s attention by an embassy might be referred back to a
provincial governor for investigation, as happened at Cnidus under
Augustus. A significant illustration of the occasional need to define
responsibility is Claudius’ explicit pronouncement of A.D. 53, amplified
in a senatus consultum, that the decisions (res indicatae) of his procurators
were to be regarded as having validity equal to his own. Under Tiberius a
procurator of Asia who had overstepped the mark was castigated by the
emperor but neither of these acts can have entirely prevented abuse of
their powers by officials.?4

II. STRUCTURE

The functioning of the administrative system in the provinces depended
upon a superstructure of military and civil officials, appointed to their
positions by the central government and directly responsible to it. The
relatively small corps of senators and equites who occupied the higher
posts were normally not natives of the provinces in which they served,
although there are sufficient exceptions, especially later in the Julio-
Claudian period, to assure us that this was not an inflexible rule.25 The
infrastructure consisted of the elements of local government in the
provincial communities — towns and villages — with varying degrees of
autonomy. In this section these two elements will be examined in detail
and some final observations will be made on the nature of the relation-
ship between them.

Governors of all ranks, legates, proconsuls and prefects or procura-
tors, exercised the full range of administrative, military and judicial
powers within their provinces which their imperium implied; if a
proconsul or a procurator had only a handful of auxiliary troops in his
province, his authority over them was no weaker than that of the legate

® RDGE 67. %* Tac. Aan. x11.60.1-2, IV.15.3.
23 Vindex, governor of Lugdunensis in a.p. 68 an Aquitanian, Dio Lxrm.22.1(2); Ti. lulius
Alexander, Tac. Hist.t.11, cf. PIR? 1 139.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

352 10. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

of Syria over his four legions and auxiliary troops. The governor’s
responsibility for maintaining the gues provinciae was paramount and
Ulpian’s description of his duties as they were in the early third century
indicates a breadth of authority which must be valid for the early
imperial period.26 Needless to say, the governor’s freedom to act was
subject to the will of the emperor, as it was to that of his delegated agent,
be it Agrippa, Gaius Caesar, Germanicus or Corbulo, with overriding
powers. The events surrounding the death of Germanicus in the East in
A.D. 19 and his difficult relationship with Piso, the legate of Syria,
illustrate the tensions which might arise; as they similarly might if an
imperial procurator, as personal agent of the princeps, encroached on a
governor’s prerogatives, as is shown by the quarrel in Britain in A.p. 62
between the governor Suetonius Paulinus and the procurator Julius
Classicianus which Nero attempted to solve by despatching the imperial
freedman Polyclitus.2” At the other end of the spectrum, a governor’s
powers were, in theory, limited by the privileges of particular communi-
ties or individuals; often they no doubt chose to observe them, in
practice they could certainly be overridden.

There was a variety of officials in direct subordination to the
provincial governor. As far as the routine work of the governor’s
officium was concerned, there is very little evidence for the early imperial
period but an inscription of the second century shows that his staff
consisted of a retinue of lictors, messengers (véafores), slaves and soldiers
(beneficiarit consulares seconded from their units); in the first century it
might perhaps have been smaller but similar in character.28 At a higher
level legates and proconsuls would have civil and (where there were
legions) military /egati; military tribunes, commanders of auxiliary units
and centurions would also play an important role in civil as well as
military administration. Proconsular governors had quaestors who
performed their traditional role in public finance, whilst the financial
interests of the imperial property (patrimonium) were tended by a
procurator provinciae (normally an eques, sometimes a freedman) with
subordinate equestrian or freedmen procurators assigned to specific
estates or sources of revenue. Their degree of independence from the
governor cannot always be precisely measured and the issue was
gradually more obfuscated by the increasingly public nature of the fiscus
and the fact that in imperial provinces the procurator provinciae had, from
the first, assumed the traditional duties of the quaestor in the sphere of
public finance. Only in Egypt can it be clearly seen that the equestrian
officials of procuratorial status acted directly as ‘departmental heads’ for
the governor but the same may be true, and increasingly so as time

2% Dig. 1.16.4.3, 1.18.3, XLVI. 18.1.20. 27 Tac. Ann.11.$7, X1V.38-9.
2 J.H. Oliver, AJP 87 (1966), 75-80, P.R.C. Weaver, AJP 87 (1966) 457-8.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

STRUCTURE 353

passed, in other imperial provinces too.2? From these officials the
governor was relatively free to select those who would assist him in their
own areas of expertise by sitting on his advisory council (consilinm), but
he was not restricted to co-opting a quaestor, legate, procurator or
military officer; he might also summon a client king, a local magnate, a
city magistrate or an expert in local laws and institutions.

The evidence for subdivision of provinces into regional administra-
tive units is patchy and sporadic and it is impossible to imagine anything
like a general pattern. In newly acquired or less Romanized areas special
arrangements might be appropriate. In the Alpine regions in the early
imperial period we find military praefecti assigned to groups of civitates in
a region; as the regions became more organized and subjugated these
praefecturae were integrated into the more regular gubernatorial pat-
tern.o The requirements which dictated such an arrangement were
doubtless analogous to those which later produced centurions in charge
of regions (centuriones regionarii) in Britain, for example, and they serve to
emphasize that in many if not all ‘frontier’ provinces the organization of
the military establishment was inseparably linked to the development of
the embryonic civil administrative structure.3! In some provinces the
evidence shows the survival of traditional regional units — the three (or
four) epistrategiae and their constituent nome divisions in Egypt, the
strategiae in Thrace (gradually phased out from the late Julio-Claudian
period), toparchies in Syria and Judaea. In some places groups of cities
were agglomerated into administrative units (the Syrian Decapolis, for
example), in others pag? were created perhaps mainly with a view to
facilitating the organization of taxation.32 The officials in charge of such
divisions will have formed an important bridge between the civic
authorities and the officials with province-wide responsibility, theoreti-
cally without prejudice to whatever degree of autonomy in internal
government obtained in the individual communities. Finally, it should
be added that, in effect, another type of regional unit was created by the
growth of large imperial estates, often embracing numbers of small
communities within their boundaries and assigned to the administration
of an imperial procurator. The efficient functioning of this relatively
small central bureaucratic superstructure (perhaps not more than 300
officials in all) depended upon an infrastructure of effective local
administration in the towns and villages of the provinces. In this respect
there are bound to be striking differences from province to province and
region to region, particularly noticeable in broad terms between East
and West; in much of the East Rome acquired provinces which retained

29 Below, pp. 682-4. 3% EJ? 243, 244. 3) Tab Vindol 22 (= 11 250).

32 Egypt, below, p. 682; Thrace, below, p. 567-8; the Decapolis, IGRR 1 824, cf. Isaac 1981 (D
93); Pflaum 1970 (E 755).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

354 10. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

their Greek or hellenistic legacy of po/eis whilst many of the western
provinces required a greater degree of direct initiative in the organiza-
tion of communities or tribal units into civitates, a process in which the
military presence played a vitally stimulating social, economic and
technical role. If a general pattern can be extrapolated from this
diversity, it should probably be defined in terms of the aim of Roman
imperial government to perpetuate or create a system of civic govern-
ment which depended upon the primacy of the urban centre in its region
and the supremacy, within that urban centre, of the wealthy aristocracy.
Urbanization, thus defined, was the essence of social and political control
and this process of development is one of the most important features of
provincial history in the first century a.D. There was the foundation of
coloniae in both the East and the West. The po/eis of the East could be
encouraged to better their status and their corporate privileges. In Gaul
(and, to a lesser extent, in North Africa, Spain and Sardinia), existing
urban centres were developed as civitates; some of the native oppida were
developed, others were replaced by new civitates which, sooner or later,
could aspire to the status of a colonia or municipium.

The structure of government in the provincial poles and civitates
depended heavily upon the oligarchical institutions of councils and
magistrates, based upon qualifications of wealth and birth and vested
with the executive power to govern their communities internally and to
represent them in their dealings with the central authority. The more
broadly based assemblies, whose composition was carefully defined so as
to distinguish citizens from non-native residents (inco/ae), constituted a
more democratic element but it was one with a restricted role, exercised
under the direction of the local Senate and the curial class.33 In some
cities specific groups were permitted their own communal laws and
institutions, so long as they did not infringe the laws of the city as a
whole. Of more general importance are other sorts of civic institutions
whose functions fitted into the administrative pattern and whose
officials exercised power and influence and gained status and prestige:
local courts, temple foundations, gerousiai (councils of elders), co/legia
(guilds) and associations of all kinds. The curial classes may well have
played an important part in these institutions as executives or patrons
but many of them were, for others below that level, catalysts of social and
political upward mobility in a pattern which systematically linked
privilege and obligation and gave the ruling aristocracies the responsibi-
lity for apportioning the burdens of local government among both
themselves and the lower status groups of the citizen body. The best
illustration of this as a general feature of the system comes in the form of

33 MW 454, cap.LIIl, cf. Mackie 1983 (E 231) ch. IIL
™ The best known is the Jewish community of Alexandria, see CPJ 1, p. 7, below, ch. 14d.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

STRUCTURE 355

the ubiquitous public services (called liturgies in the East and wxnera in
the West) which distributed the necessary burdens of local administ-
ration (including such functions as tax-collection for the central govern-
ment) amongst the populace according to property qualification. The
highly developed and organized liturgical system of the later Empire
cannot safely be retrojected to the earlier period nor can it be assumed
that it developed pari passu in different areas. But the vestigial-and
scattered evidence for the early imperial period makes it clear that the
roots are to be sought here, at a time when it was probably still
meaningful to make a clear distinction between such public services
(whether prestigious and theoretically voluntary or, to an increasing
extent, menial and compulsory) and the elective magisterial offices
(bonores or archai).35

Although the cities normally enjoyed a primal position in relation to
the villages of their serritorium, it is important to emphasize that this only
rarely seems to have involved direct administration of villages from the
civic centre. Some Alpine tribal villages were governed from their
neighbouring municipia and in Africa magistrates of Carthage were
involved in the administration of villages whose population included
Roman citizens. But even there, other native settlements probably had
their own magistrates and in Spain a vicus may be found acting
independently of its civitas.56 In western Asia Minor and Syria village
political life was vigorous, involving village assemblies, sometimes
councils of elders (gerousiai), and boards of magistrates; in Cappadocia,
which had been little affected by Hellenism and consequently boasted
few cities, it was the villages which were at first the centres of
organization and of economic and religious life; internal village admi-
nistration in Egypt did not depend on the nome-capitals, though it was
perhaps subject to a greater degree of supervision by government
officials than was the case elsewhere. In Gallia Belgica, where some 150
vici are known, periods of growth have been identified immediately after
the conquest and in the middle of the first century a.D., involving both
pre-Roman oppida and new foundations appearing close to the main
roads. Here the grouping of villages in pagi and the development of the
major vici as cult-centres emphasizes the variation in size and the general
tendency of groups to form their own central-place hierarchies.3”7 An
important role as a centre of market, commerce and manufacture
together with the existence of a wealthy landowning (and hence
magisterial) elite will have been the basis for claims to city-status which

38 Ej? 311.5562, FIRA 1 56,1 21, cap.XCH.

% Anauni and Tridentum, GCN }368.21-36; Carthaginian magistrates, ILS 1945, CIL
vitt.26274; Spanish vicus, AE 1933, 267; compare Hierapolis sending peace-keeping officials to
villages in OGIS 527 (date uncertain). 37 Wightman 1983 (£ 520) 91-6.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

356 TO. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

larger villages made with increasing frequency in the second and third
centuries.

This sketch of the governmental system as consisting of a central
bureaucratic structure and the local administrative institutions ignores
one feature which deserves mention in this context — the existence of
leagues of cities and provincial federate assemblies (Aoina or concilia). The
former were never very widespread and where they did exist were
probably a concession to local traditions (as in Greece, where limited
rights of coinage were enjoyed) or a pre-existing and convenient
instrument of organization in a new province like Lycia-Pamphylia. The
provincial assemblies, of which only the Asian and the Gallic (serving
the Three Gauls) are known in any detail during this period, played an
important role in emperor-cult and might be the medium for trans-
mission of measures affecting the province as a whole or for expressing
the common grievances of the provincial cities at the imperial court, but
neither they nor the leagues had a role of any vital administrative
importance, nor did they occupy a regular role as intermediary between
the cities and the central government; it is, however, worth noting one
interesting instance from the reign of Tiberius of the Thessalian League
attempting, by vote of the constituent members, to resolve an inter-city
dispute which was remitted to it by the provincial governor.>8 A more
important feature is the fact that they allowed concentration of the city
aristocracies in a broader and more prestigious context, reinforcing their
standing and control in their individual cities.

Effective links between the central and the local administrative
structures, nevertheless, did exist. As far as function was concerned, the
main feature is the way in which the provincial authorities of the central
government exercised a supervisory or controlling interest over the
local, sometimes under the pressure of requests from the communities
themselves. This is illustrated in more detail in the following section, but
it is worth noting here first, that even if such intervention frequently
went beyond what the central government would have chosen to do of
its own accord, this possibility was always inherent in the relationship
between Rome and the provincial community and second, that the
inability of the communities to exercise their autonomy satisfactorily
foreshadows the situation in the later Empire when the higher echelons
of the local administration were effectively incorporated in the central
bureaucracy; in the early Empire it might occasionally be expedient to
send a person who already enjoyed influence at the imperial court back to
his native city to regulate its affairs, as happened to Athenodorus of
Tarsus under Augustus.%9 Intervention by central government and the

38 Ej? 521. % Strab. xtv.5.14 (674¢).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

FUNCTION 357

use of local people was greatly facilitated by the opportunity for local
magnates or their descendants to enter imperial service, perhaps availing
themselves of the patronage of provincial governors or other powerful
contacts; in doing so, they thus effectively withdrew from direct
participation in local government, and deprived the communities, in the
long run, of the use of their administrative capability and the resources
upon which it was based. This may be seen as an inevitable consequence
of the opening up of the equestrian status to the wealthier provincials.
Antecedent to this might be the opportunity for a local magistrate, such
as Lampo of Alexandria, to assist the provincial governor in his court or
to sit on his consilium. A local dynastic family, like the Euryclids of
Sparta, which gained citizenship under Augustus, could boast a member
of equestrian procuratorial status by the reign of Claudius.

Ill. FUNCTION

In contrast to the relative formality of the bureaucratic structure, an
attempt to describe how provincial administration worked in practice
must take account of the flexibility which the structure permitted and
observe the patterns and relationships which developed in the early
imperial period. A useful analysis of the working of provincial govern-
ment can be presented in terms of the role of the various elements in the
structure — emperor, Senate, the provincial governor and his subordi-
nates, communities, institutions and individuals — the relationships
between them and the factors which limited or determined the scope and
nature of their action. Their functions can be illustrated by examples
which show what kind of action they were free to take in what kind of
situation and how different kinds of situations affected the complex of
their interrelationships.

Here it is perhaps best to begin at the bottom of the structure and
discuss the villages first. In general, they seem to have enjoyed a
considerable degree of autonomy in communal affairs (though this
doubtless varied from region to region), electing boards of magistrates
from amongst the local landholders to manage village funds, gifts and
bequests, the administration of markets, temples, public buildings and
common property. The democratic element in local government sur-
vived quite vigorously in the form of village assemblies which discussed
substantive matters as well as making corporate dedications and honor-
ary decrees.*! Detailed evidence for village affairs can be found only in

49 Lampo, Philo, In Flace. 131~4; Euryclids, Bowersock 1961 (£ 817) 117-18.

“| IGRR tv 1304 (Hierocaesarea), honours for a priest who dedicated an altar from his own
resources to Rome, Augustus and the demos, OGIS 488, an assembly held by the gerousia discusses
division of communal property.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

358 10. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

Egypt but we should not underrate the significance of what we know ofa
village like Tebtunis in the Fayum (an area particularly affected by large-
scale settlement of Greeks in the Ptolemaic period) where, for instance,
documents of the reign of Claudius show the administration of the
village record office which kept detailed account of contractual transac-
tions between villagers and the activity of the local guild of salt-
merchants in organizing members’ rights to ply their trade in and around
Tebtunis.42 Here government officials played a significant supervisory
role as a matter of course and, as in other provinces, the links with larger
towns in the region may normally have been quite tenuous except in so
far as the towns functioned as the nuclei of their regions for the purposes
of taxation. Even where there were significant links with the towns a
degree of tolerated independence and autonomy was not precluded but
the lack of clearly defined status and privileges will have meant that small
communities were more readily subject to interference and control by a
provincial governor and his subordinates.43

The more abundant evidence from the provincial towns and cities
naturally affords a more detailed picture. The status of the urban
communities varied a good deal and the privileged cities were, at least in
the early period, relatively few; of the 399 towns enumerated by Pliny the
Elder in the three Spanish provinces, for instance, 291 were merely
civitates stipendtariae (tribute-paying communities).“4 The more favoured
communities might enjoy freedom and immunity from taxation, or
freedom established by charter, senatus consultum, imperial edicts or
letters; but the gradual emergence of general patterns did not preclude
the existence of rights and concessions specific to a single community.45
In the West the early pattern of peregrine and citizen communities defies
simple classification but it is clear that, in general, elevation of status
meant achievement of the status of colonia or of municipium with the Latin
right, which could be confirmed by charter and which normally
conferred Roman citizenship on the magistrates and their families.
Native towns such as those of Spain or Africa might prepare themselves
for higher status by imitating Roman institutions in their patterns of
magistracies and local civil law. In consequence even in the Republic an
issue in a peregrine Spanish community could be described in Roman
legal language; in early imperial Africa a local magistrate marked the
elevation of his town to municipal status merely by a change of title,

42 PMich 237-42, 245. 43 See above, n. 36.
“ HN 111.7, 18, 4, 117. The lists are generally agreed to be based on sources of the Augustan
period.

45 Tus Italicum: Dig. 50.15.13 senatus consulta etc.: Reynolds 1982 (B 270) nos. 8, 9, 13; rights of
asylum for the temple of Zeus at Panamara: RDGE 30; income from indirect taxes given by
Augustus to the Saborenses, requests for additions to be addressed to the proconsul of Baetica: MW
461.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

FUNCTION 359

from sufes to duovir.6 Sometimes the process operated in reverse, for the
imperial authority could diminish or revoke the privileges of a specific
community or group of communities. Even when this was not done ona
permanent basis, there was always the potential for a ruling by an
emperor or governor which could override the rights of the community
for some specific reason.*?

Differences between the old-established po/eis of the East and the
developing civitates of the western provinces and the wide range of status
enjoyed by the different communities does not make it impossible to
identify the general features of their role in provincial government. In
both East and West the privileged communities exercised their local
autonomy and met their obligations to the imperial government through
the institutions of councils and magistrates recruited from the propertied
classes. Their role is adumbrated by Plutarch in a frequently cited
passage which must primarily reflect the experience of the Greek East
under Roman domination: the civic magistrate is also a subject,
controlled by proconsuls, and should not take great pride in his crown of
office, for the proconsul’s boots are just above his head; he must avoid
stirring the common people to ambition and unrest and he must always
have a friend among the powerful, for the Romans are always very keen
to promote the political interests of their friends.*® In the East, as one
might expect, the propertied families which provided these magnates
and dynasts were frequently old-established ones which had been
powerful when the po/eis were city-states rather than merely provincial
towns. An old aristocracy could absorb influential new elements (such as
Italian immigrants), a less hellenized one could adapt to the pattern. In
the West, aristocratic tribal patterns might be suitably modified to
encourage the development of a pro-Roman upper class, as they seem to
have been in the Three Gauls (though not so effectively as completely to
suppress anti-Roman feeling).*9 Free birth and sufficient wealth were the
technical prerequisites of curial status; freedmen with only the latter
qualification were normally debarred from office, but freedmen’s sons
were entitled to enter the curial order and by the second century they
were to make their mark in local politics in increasing numbers.°°

* Roman citizenship: Lex Irnitana, cap.21 (Gonzalez 1986 (8 235)), cf. Sherwin-White 1973 (A
87) ch. 14; the tabula Contrebiensis: Richardson, 1983 (B 271) 33-41; the first dyovir at Volubilis: GON
4o7b.

“7 Note the precision with which Pliny and Trajan describe the position v/s-d-vis the request of
Amisus, a civitas libera et foederata, to be allowed to have a benefit society: ‘ut tu... dispiceres quid et
quatenus aut permittendum aut prohibendum putares’ (Ep. x.g2), ‘possumus quo minus habeant
non impedire’ (Ep. x.93); compare Ep. 1v.22, Trajan’s conss/ium upholding the right of a magistrate
of Vienne to abolish games endowed in a will. 48 Plutarch, Praecepta rei publicae gerendae 17, 18.

“ The Syrian prince Dexandros, first high-priest of imperial cult: Rey-Coquais 1973 (B 269) 42ff
(=AE 1976, 678); Gaul: Drinkwater 1978 (E 323), cf. the revolt of Florus and Sacrovir, Tac.
Ana.u1.40-6. *® The Lex Visellia of a.p. 24, CJ tx.21.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

360 10. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

City government was thus essentially oligarchic. From the beginning
of the second century, as the attractions of civic office faded, effective
power was concentrated in the hands of an ever-smaller group which, by
the later Empire, became institutionalized and appears in the legal texts
as the principales (leading decurions). Many towns, however, retained
democratic citizen assemblies which could theoretically exercise elec-
toral powers and pass resolutions; by the end of the first century A.D. the
electoral function had become less meaningful, as co-option to councils
and appointment of magistrates by those councils became more
common, but it is noteworthy that voting procedures in popular
assemblies still find a place in the municipal charters of the Flavian
period; popular decrees may never have been concerned with much
more than the formal or honorific, but their survival in the inscriptional
evidence from the Greek East is none the less significant of the fact that
the assembly (demos) remained a formal element in the communal
structure.5!

Autonomy in internal administration conducted through the bouleu-
tic or curial class allowed economy in the number and function of
government administrators. The areas in which self-government was
theoretically exercised add up to an impressive list. The regulation and
organization of the councils and magistrates and other communal
institutions such as gerousiai, trade- and cult-associations and gymnasia;
performance of public services through a system of wunera or liturgies;
regulation of food supply and market facilities; general control of
communal finances, including the exploitation of particular resources,
management of property owned by the community, imposition of some
tolls or local taxes; management of temples and cults (including some
degree of control in emperor-cult once permission for its establishment
had been granted) with attendant festivals and games; exercise of such
specific legal powers as were permitted to individual institutions or
officials (perhaps less severely limited than is commonly believed); the
maintenance of public order and the supervision of prisons; sometimes
rights to local coinage; organization of building projects in the town,
frequently accomplished through the munificence of the local elite.

The ways in which the autonomy of communities in internal govern-
ment were restricted and limited were nevertheless effective and signifi-
cant. It was subject to general regulations applicable to a province as a
whole, such as those embedded in a /ex provinciae (which could be
modified by imperial or senatorial authority) or those promulgated by
individual governors; or to general enactments which affected the status

51 Elections at Malaca, MW 454, caps.s5—9; the demos, many examples including EJ? 114
(Alabanda), 318 (Cos), RDGE 26, col.d (Mytilene), 60 (Mylasa), Aj 68, cf. J.H. Oliver, GRBS 6
(1965) 143-56 (Histria), GCN 371 (Thasos).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

FUNCTION 361

and privileges of particular groups in the empire such as Jews or veteran
soldiers.52 Not dissimilar was the effect of the spread of Roman
citizenship through personal grants to individuals, military service and
the institutions of municipal government. The citizenship extended
privileges to individuals and groups which could override or curtail the
hold which their community’s laws and institutions had upon them. We
may note the complaints made in A.D. 63 toa prefect of Egypt by a mixed
group of veterans that their citizen rights were being ignored; and
conversely a striking instance from the Augustan period at Chios which
makes it clear that Roman citizens resident there were subject to local
laws.53 An important indication of the general need to limit the scope for
using Roman status to avoid local obligations occurs in the third
Augustan edict from Cyrene which forbids Cyreneans with Roman
citizenship to evade liturgical service in Cyrene; general recognition of
this principle meant that provincial towns could continue to benefit from
what was, in effect, a form of local taxation.54 But, on the whole, the
upward mobility of the local elite into citizen and sometimes ultimately
equestrian or senatorial status made that elite more remote from the
needs and the control of the cities, which could only retain their hold by
encouraging ties of patronage.

Explicit interference in city autonomy by government officials tended
to become more frequent in the course of time, partly because the nature
of the ruling classes in the cities was always potentially factious; when the
community itself did not have the means or the power to resolve internal
difficulties which resulted, it would be likely to resort to an appeal to the
central authority. The invitation to intervention was bound to weaken
the confidence of the Roman government in the ability of the communi-
ties to govern themselves peacefully and efficiently, and ultimately to
lead to erosion of their independence.

The phenomena which most frequently demanded the attention of
central government were the inability to resolve internal conflicts, the
reaction of communities to attempts to erode their privileges, and
disputes between communities. Internal conflict evidently underlies the
fourth of Augustus’ Cyrene edicts, which attempts to deal with the
problem of the bias of Romans against Greeks in juries dealing with non-
capital cases, or the criminal accusation brought by a Cnidian embassy in
6 B.c. to Augustus and referred by him to the proconsul of Asia.55
Attacks on communal privilege are illustrated in an inscription which
records the fixing of boundaries for the town of Histria and the area of

52 Augustan emendation of the Lex Pompeia: Pliny, Ep. x.79; governors’ regulations: Lex
Irnitana, cap.85 (Gonzalez 1986 (B 235)); Jews and veterans: above, n. zz.

53 Egyptian veterans, GCN 297; Chios, EJ? 317 (for a possible precedent from the republican
period see J. and L. Robert, Claros I, Les décrets hellénistiques (Paris, 1989) p. 64, lines 43-4).

4 EJ? 311.5 5-62. 55 EJ? 311.62—-71.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

362 10. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

operation for a contractor of customs dues by decision of the governor
of Lower Moesia, Laberius Maximus, in A.D. 100. Earlier letters of three
legates of the Julio-Claudian period are quoted, repeatedly asserting the
rights of the town to revenues from fish-pickling and pine-forests in its
area. One cannot but conclude from the frequency with which these
rights were upheld that they were constantly under threat, presumably
from contractors collecting taxes for the imperial government, as the
letter of Laberius Maximus implies.5* As for disputes between communi-
ties, reference has already been made to the case referred to the
Thessalian League by a governor in the reign of Tiberius. Greater detail
is to be found in a decree of A.D. 69, issued by the proconsul of Sardinia,
Helvius Agrippa, dealing with a dispute between the Patulcenses and
Galillenses over territorial boundaries. These had originally been estab-
lished by an adjudication of a republican proconsul, recently reiterated
by an equestrian governor in a.D. 66/7, apparently acting in accordance
with the advice of the emperor Nero. It was this situation which the
Patulcenses wished to have upheld, but the Galillenses had been
encroaching on their property and had informed Agrippa’s predecessor
that they could produce a document (presumably the original judgment)
from the imperial archives in Rome which would support their case and,
by implication, invalidate whatever local documentation the governors
were using. However, after two adjournments they had failed to produce
it and Agrippa’s decree ordered them to vacate the disputed territory.5”

Internal self-government was not the only important aspect of the role
of the cities. They also functioned as guarantors of the fulfilment of
obligations imposed upon them by the central government. The overall
assessment of the burden of direct personal and property taxes on a
province was imposed en b/oc, but individual liabilities were determined
on the basis of the provincial census. It was the civic authorities who
were responsible for providing their portion of the tribute, and they
were free to determine, at least in the cases of those taxes which were not
assessed at a fixed rate, the liability of individuals, as is shown by an
inscription from Messene which gives details of the division, and
honours the magistrate who organized it.58 Much of the work of
collecting these taxes was devolved upon the towns who appointed local
collectors and if they failed to meet their quota the responsibility for
making up the deficit fell on the community. Collection of indirect taxes
through farming remained common and the administration of some
contracts was in the hands of the civic authorities. The same practice
obtained with regard to impositions for military purposes — requisitions

5 AJ 68, cf. J.H. Oliver, GRBS 6 (1965) 143-56.

57 Thessalian League, EJ? 321; Sardinia, GCN 392.

58 IG 5.1.1432f with A. Wilhelm, JO.AI 17 (1914) 1-120; for the dating to a.p. 35-44 (not
universally accepted) see A. Giovannini, Rove ef la circulation monétaire en Gréce (Basel, 1978) 115-22.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

FUNCTION 363

of supplies, the provision of transport and billeting facilities — according
to a schedule which divided the burden imposed on the province
between its constituent communities.59

It is not difficult to see how the interests of the central government
weighed heavily on the independence of the cities in these areas, where
close monitoring and liaison with provincial officials were essential. The
inscription from Messene, mentioned above, states that the apportion-
ment of the tax burden by the magistrate was carried out in the presence
of the praetorian legate. Evidence of tax-payers failing to meet their
obligations could lead provincial officials into direct intervention, either
on their own initiative or at the request of the local authorities. These
same officials, or sometimes the civic authorities themselves, might take
opportunities to exact taxes and services above the quota, and com-
plaints about such abuses might, on occasion, attract the attention of the
provincial governor or even of the emperor; it was abuses of this kind,
inter alia, which prompted the benevolent edict issued by the prefect of
Egypt, Tiberius Iulius Alexander, in a.p. 68.

The areas in which the central government exercised direct administ-
ration were very broad. The responsibilities for the military establish-
ment, for financial affairs and for the administration of justice were
interlocking and any implied division may be misleading unless it is
borne in mind that, apart from the strictly military command and use of
troops, a matter falling most obviously into one of these categories
might also involve elements relevant to the others. The powers of
officials subordinate to the governor tended to be defined by their
function; a legate with judicial responsibility (/egatus iuridicus) could
handle cases involving property or financial matters, a military officer or
a financial procurator would naturally deal with questions involving
legal issues and the competence to do so was conferred by their
administrative function. Even in matters of criminal jurisdiction, except
for clearly defined and limited powers like the right to impose the death
penalty (sas gladii), officials enjoyed great latitude and discretion,
especially in dealing with non-citizens. There were occasional attempts
to define the powers of governors or procurators in a specific way (and it
is probably significant that these were more frequent in the second and
third centuries) but more often limits and restrictions were imposed by
the limits of their administrative role and the need to observe the
prerogatives of other officials and the rights of communities and
individuals with whom they were dealing.®?

Organization of the functions and upkeep of the military establish-

59 Mitchell 1976 (B 255), cf. GCN 375, 382. © IG v.1.1432.6, to-1n.

6! GCN 391.10-15, 26-9, 46.

62 Rights of procurators and /x for the prefect of Egypt, Tac. Azn.xit.60.1—3; later evidence,
Ulpian in Mos. et Roar. leg. coll. 14.3.1-2 (FIRA ut, pp. 577-8), CJ 1t1.26.1-4 (A.D. 197-233).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

364 10. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

ment in a province involved a variety of tasks, normally the responsibi-
lity of the military legates, the junior officers (tribunes and praefecti) and
the centurions. Groups of soldiers or units needed to be moved around
for garrison, guard or escort duties. Numbers had to be maintained by
recruitment, either in the legionary recruiting grounds or, in the case of
auxiliaries, in the local area or the home province of the unit. The
administration of soldiers’ pay and military supplies may seem to be
largely internal to the army but it must be borne in mind that these, like
the organization of requisitioned transport and billeting, had wider
repercussions for the province as a whole in terms of the circulation of
currency and the availability, collection and movement of commodities.
Some of its functions brought the army into closer contact with the
civilian populace — road-building, policing, supervision of mines and
quarries and of other specific establishments such as mints, factories or
markets, assisting in carrying out the provincial census and transporting
the annona; it is also likely that military personnel supervised the
assignment of land to discharged veterans and performed an important
escort role in frontier provinces when large numbers of inhabitants were
moved and resettled. More crucially and not infrequently, the army was
called upon to perform its peace-keeping role when civil disturbance or
banditry threatened the quies provinciae.®

The administration of provincial finances was complex. Proconsuls
had quaestors with responsibility for public finances, but in the imperial
provinces this task fell on the equestrian or freedman procurators and
their staffs and the regional provincial officials. The conduct of the
provincial census was fundamental to the taxation system and to the
general management of the controls applied to the population by fiscal
means. The census, which may well have occurred at fixed intervals in all
provinces although it is only sparsely attested, was probably the regular
responsibility of the governor and his staff. Records of property
ownership and personal status must have necessitated periodic large-
scale revision, and there are likely to have been arrangements which
allowed for running amendments. It was also of vital importance to
maintain effective liaison with provincial communities and with the
collectors and transporters of direct and indirect taxes. In some pro-
vinces management of the leasing of public land to state tenants and the
collection of rents was also in the hands of provincial officials but it is
impossible to make anything like a general estimate of the amount of
land which fell into this category.

83 Civil functions: RMR 51; census: [LS 2683; transport of annona: O. Guéraud, J JP 4 (1950) 107—
15; resettlement: above, n. 21; peace-keeping: Joseph. BJ 11.266—9, EJ? 227, Dig. 1.18.3.

Evidence for the provincial census collected by Brunt 1981 (D 118); public land in Egypt,
Rowlandson 1996 (£ 963).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

FUNCTION 365

In all provinces the procuratorial officials were responsible for
supervision of the interests of the imperial property (patrimonium), ever
growing and playing an increasingly important role in the public
economy.$5 Management of imperial agricultural estates is the most
obvious feature but by no means the only one, since the patrimonium also
gradually acquired widespread ownership of mines, quarries and various
kinds of manufacturing establishments.© It exercised a more general
financial control through regulation of the money supply and exchange;
in this sphere above all, perhaps, the blurring of the distinction between
public and patrimonial interests needs stressing, for the coinage was the
emperor’s, the mines were owned by the patrimonium, but the organiza-
tion of the volume and use of money in the provinces affected all areas of
the administration.®’

The very wide interests of the fiscus in Egypt are early attested in the
Code of Regulations of the Special Account (Gnomon of the Idios Logos),
whose operations affected the status of individuals and groups (Egyp-
tians, Greeks, Romans, metropolites, freedmen and women, priests and
soldiers), and matters relevant to property, inheritance and confiscation.
It is possible that it provided the precedent for the similar extension of
the role of the fiscus more generally which features prominently in later
legal sources.*® The ramifications of its activity at a modest level of
society are illustrated in detail by a group of papyri from the village of
Socnopaiou Nesos in the Fayum concerning a dispute between two
villagers named Nestnephis and Satabous.® In a.p. 12 Nestnephis
assaulted Satabous and stole a mortar from his mill. Satabous sent letters
of protest to the chief official of the nome (the strategos), his assistant, a
centurion named Lucretius and the prefect of Egypt, informing them of
this attack. Whether the matter was investigated we do not know, but in
A.D. 14/15 Nestnephis sent a statement to the royal scribe of the nome
accusing Satabous of having added, in that year, some vacant land
(adespotos), which was technically the property of the Idsos Logos, to a
house which he had purchased in a.p. 11. The official in charge of the
Idios Logos, Seppius Rufus, placed the matter on the prefect’s assize list
and the disputants were summoned to appear in Alexandria. In fact,
Satabous did not appear and the investigation, largely conducted
through correspondence, extended into the next year. The upshot was
that Satabous was compelled to pay the sum of 3,500 drachmas to the
Idios Logos for the land. This affair also illustrates the wide scope and
variety of ‘legal business’ and emphasizes the impossibility of isolating it

65 The much debated question of the relationship between patrimonium and fiscus is here avoided,
cf. Millar 1963 (D 148), Brunt 1966 (p 116) and above, ch. 8.

6 Evidence for agricultural estates and other imperial properties collected by Crawford 1976 (p
125), Millar 1977 (A 59) 175-89. 87 See above, ch. 8.

68 BGU 1210, cf. POxy 3014. 69 Documents listed by Swarney 1970 (£ 972) 41-2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

366 10. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

from other areas of administration. Provincial governors, legates and
some procurators had jurisdictional powers in both criminal and civil
matters. Governors and their legates, usually acting with the advice of a
consilium, would deal with hordes of cases, petitions and disputes during
their assize tours. The assize circuit (conventus) is central to the judicial
administration of the provinces since it provided the only opportunity
for dealing with business outside the provincial capital. Even so, it was
far from comprehensive and, from the point of view of the provincial
subject, the elements of time and space might be decisive: for almost
everyone outside the capital and for almost all the time, the governor was
not to hand. Naturally, the governor would not expect to deal with all
judicial matters himself. Some cases could be directly delegated by
provincial officials to appointed judges or jury-courts; subordinate
officials in the hierarchy are also to be found performing judicial
functions in matters arising within their administrative competence
whilst civic authorities and institutions were permitted to retain defined
and limited jurisdictional powers. For each governor, his province
generated a mass of criminal charges, major or minor disputes between
central government and an individual community or subject, between
one community or one individual and another. Cases of murder, criminal
assault, public violence or treason (mazestas) would naturally attract the
attention of the governor, who possessed the power of capital jurisdic-
tion, or even the emperor. Disputes between communities over property
or rights to revenue, between individuals over contracts, property,
inheritance, public liability or questions affecting the status of particular
persons or groups might also do so, especially if the parties concerned
were persistent, but many such matters were doubtless settled by
officials lower down the hierarchy.

In matters dealt with at the highest level, procedure was relatively
clear-cut. The first and second Augustan edicts from Cyrene present a
fairly straightforward picture of the emperor responding to a provincial
embassy and regulating the composition of jury-courts which heard
cases delegated by the governor, and dealing with an individual sent
from the province, perhaps under suspicion of maiestas.’ Further down
the hierarchy there was a great deal more uncertainty and confusion, as is
sharply illustrated by the experiences of St Paul at Jerusalem. There, it
was a tribune who arrested Paul during riots, but then allowed him to
address the Jews; after further unrest he ordered Paul to be examined by
scourging but on discovering that he was a Roman citizen he detained
him, released him the following day to appear before the priests and the
Sanhedrin but fearing another riot after his address, took him back to the
barracks. After discovering a plot against Paul’s life, the tribune wrote to

7% EJ? 311.1-55.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONCLUSION 367

the governor Felix and sent Paul under armed escort to Caesarea. The
trial before Felix was inconclusive and Paul was held in detention. Two
years later the Jews again initiated a prosecution before Festus, the
successor of Felix. On this occasion Paul produced his famous appeal to
Caesar and Festus, after consulting his advisers, felt compelled to allow
it. But a few days later Festus took the opportunity to discuss the matter
with the client king Herod Agrippa II, the upshot of which was a second
hearing for Paul before Festus and Agrippa. After Paul’s defence Festus
and Agrippa conferred and concluded that Paul had done nothing to
merit death or imprisonment and Agrippa remarked that he could have
been discharged if he had not appealed to the emperor.”! Earlier episodes
in Greece emphasize the blurring of the lines of demarcation between the
jurisdiction of the civic authorities and that of the provincial officials. At
Philippi Paul and Silas had been brought before the local magistrates in
the market-place by the owners of a slave girl and were ordered to be
stripped, beaten and thrown into jail. Later, however, alarmed by the
discovery that they were Roman citizens and therefore entitled not to be
punished in this way, the magistrates ordered their release. At Corinth it
was the Jews who had taken Paul before the proconsul’s court but
Gallio, who happened to be on the spot, considered it a matter of internal
Jewish Law, refused to judge the case and disregarded the beating of the
synagogue leader.?2

The incoherence of the system, if it can be called such, has recently
been described in terms to which the evidence of the Acts of the Apostles
gives point: ‘The process might involve individuals of the same or
differing status, Roman or non-citizen, local communities or officials,
Roman officials or any combination. No matter, either, that all manner of
processes jostle each other: in trial by jury in the provinces or at Rome on
charges established by statute; inquiries into conduct alleged by
informers to be criminal; civil cases brought by litigants; arbitration
between communities and decisions administrative rather than legal;
police action ...’73 From the government’s point of view it had two
outstanding virtues: it was very flexible and economical with the time
and energies of the officials available and, by and large, it worked.

Iv. CONCLUSION

From one point of view, the provincial administration can be analysed in

terms of the complex of coexisting relationships between the different

elements, the emperor, the provincial governor and his subordinate

officials, the province, the provincial communities as a group, the

individual community and finally the individual subject. There is a
1 AA 21.31-26.32. 7 AA 16.16—40, 18.12-17. 73 Levick 1985 (D 98) 46.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

368 Io. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

temptation to argue (especially on the basis of the more abundant
evidence for specific detail from the Roman East) that policy-making
was not part of the dynamics of this complex of relationships, that the
empire was governed, in effect, by a series of ad hoc decisions, the
formation of which was significantly influenced by precedent. This is
clearly a valid characterization of one aspect of provincial administration
and it is true that observable change was rarely comprehensive and
sharp, rather a series of gradual modifications. One noticeable feature is
the flexibility of administrative practice and this emphasizes the import-
ance of reaction to specific stimuli which might or might not harden into
patterns and rules by the discriminating application of precedent;
discrimination occurs when a decision has to be made as to whether a
matter is to be dealt with in the same way as some previous, similar case
or whether some new solution is to be devised. This might be described
as, in essence, a system of rule by case-law with an infinite capacity for
fine tuning according to the particular circumstances. Relevant circum-
stances might include the nature of the province, features surviving from
the pre-Roman era, the status of the community, institution or indivi-
dual, the positions and powers of the officials involved. Roman provin-
cial government was not a matter of deciding, a priori, how administ-
ration was to be conducted and fitting any situation into a preordained
procedure. Rather, it worked because of its capacity to grasp the essential
point of any issue, to deal with it according to the means available and
certain general notions governing the relationship between the imperial
power and its subjects and, once dealt with, absorb it into a developing
mosaic of flexible patterns and institutions.

It is notoriously difficult to extract from the items of evidence which
illustrate specific cases and different relationships in action any coherent
notion of an emperor forming or implementing a ‘policy of provincial
administration’; even less do we have programmatic statements which
explicitly set out any such broad view, except in terms of general
benevolence or intention to rectify known abuses. If consistent themes
and policies are to be observed in the Julio-Claudian period and credited
to the vision of particular emperors, they have to be drawn from
disparate individual items of evidence, unevenly spread in time and
space, or from observable trends: the spread of Roman citizenship,
particularly in the reigns of Augustus and Claudius; the encouragement
of urban communities and their aristocracies (especially in the West,
where it was intimately linked to the spread of citizenship through the
spread of colonial and municipal status); growth of communication
systems; integration of the economic structures of town and country; the
fostering of trading links within the structure of a relatively coherent

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONCLUSION

369

Table 2 Provinces and governors at the end of the Julio-Claudian period

Province

SICILIA
SARDINIA

HISPANIA
TARRACONENSIS

BAETICA

LUSITANIA

NARBONENSIS

AQUITANIA

LUGDUNENSIS

BELGICA

GERMANIA SUPERIOR

GERMANIA INFERIOR
ALPES MARITIMAE
ALPES COTTIAE
ALPES POENINAE
BRITANNIA

RAETIA

NORICUM
DALMATIA
MOESIA

THRACE
MACEDONIA
ACHAEA

ASIA
BITHYNIA-PONTUS
GALATIA
CAPPADOCIA

LYCIA-PAMPHYLIA
CYPRUS
SYRIA

JUDAEA

Title

Proconsul
Proconsul

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Proconsul

Leg. Aug.p.p.

Proconsul

Leg.Aug.p.p.
Leg.Aug.p.p.
Leg.Aug.p.p.
Leg.Aug.p.p.

Leg. Aug.p.p.

Procurator
Procurator
Procurator

Leg. Aug.p.p.

Procurator

Leg.Aug.p.p.
Leg. Aug.p.p.

Procurator
Proconsul
Proconsul
Proconsul
Proconsul

Leg.Aug.p.p.
Leg. Aug.p.p.

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Proconsu]

Leg. Aug.p.p.

Procurator

Rank

Ex-praetor
Ex-praetor

Ex-consul

Ex-praetor
Ex-praetor
Ex-praetor
Ex-praetor
Ex-praetor
Ex-praetor
Ex-consul

Ex-consul

Eques
Eques
Eques

Ex-consul

Eques
Eques

Ex-consul
Ex-consul
Eques
Ex-praetor
Ex-praetor
Ex-consul
Ex-praetor
Ex-praetor
Ex-praetor

Ex-praetor
Ex-praetor
Ex-consul

Eques

Remarks

Governed by praefecti|
procuratores earlier in the
Julio-Claudian period and
again under the Flavians, cf.
ch. 135

Until the reign of Domitian,
these were military
commands rather than
provincial governorships, cf.

ch. 13f

Coupled with Alpes Poeninae
until A.D. 47

Cf. ch. 134

During Nero’s Parthian War
governors were ex-consuls.
At the beginning of the
Flavian period the governor
was an ex-praetor but the
post was later upgraded
again.

Included Cilicia Campestris
from ¢. 44 B.C. —¢. A.D. 72

Governed by an equestrian
procurator until the outbreak
of the First Jewish War (a.p.
66). During the war the
command was held by
Vespasian as consular legate.
Thereafter it was normally
governed by a Leg. Aug.p.p.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

37°

Table 2 (cont.)

Province

AEGYPTUS
CRETE-CYRENE
AFRICA
NUMIDIA
MAURETANIA
CAESARIENSIS
MAURETANIA
TINGITANA

Io. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

Tith

Praefectus
Proconsul
Proconsul

Leg. Aug.p.p.

Procurator

Rank Remarks

Eques

Ex-praetor

Ex-consul

Ex-praetor = Cf. ch. 134

Eques Coupled in a.p. 68/9 and again
(under a Leg. Aug.p.p.) in

Eques A.D. 7§

fiscal and taxation system in which (it has been argued’) the volume of
currency was adjusted in a rational manner; a military establishment
which infused new urban, social and economic structures into new
provinces and a frame of mind which always aimed to ensure the security
and peaceful development of territory in possession whilst keeping open

the options for further expansion.

7 Lo Cascio 1981 (D 144).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 11

THE ARMY AND THE NAVY

LAWRENCE KEPPIE

I. THE ARMY OF THE LATE REPUBLIC

By the middle of the first century B.c. the Roman army had developed
over centuries of all but continuous warfare into a professionally minded
force. At least fifteen legions (a total of about 60,o00-70,000 men) were
maintained in being each year, their manpower drawn from all Italy
south of the Po. Military service was the duty of every Roman citizen
aged between seventeen and forty-five. Those who enlisted were usually
held for at least six years of continuous service, after which they could
look for discharge. In law they remained liable for call-out as evocati to a
maximum of sixteen years (twenty years in a crisis).! Some men were
happy to remain in the army well beyond the six-year minimum and
constituted a core of professionals for whom soldiering had become a
lifetime’s Occupation; but conscription was employed throughout the
late Republic, and it should not be imagined that the legionaries were
always predominantly volunteers. Until the later second century, cavalry
was formed from the equites (as the name implies), who might be
expected to serve three years, with a maximum of ten. Thereafter Rome
looked to her allies, in Italy and beyond, to make up the deficiency. (In
theory the equites remained liable for service, but were not called upon.)

At first, military service had been viewed as an essential public duty:
only men with substantial property were permitted (or could afford) to
serve. However, the property-requirement was gradually reduced, and
from the time of Marius no more is heard of it. No pay was at first
considered necessary, but from the early fourth century a payment
(stipendium) was introduced to cover out-of-pocket expenses; in Poly-
bius’ day (¢. 160 B.c.) the stipendium stood at one third of a denarius per
day, an annual rate of 120 denarii.? Soldiers looked to supplement it with
booty. The stipendium was ‘doubled’ by Caesar, probably about 49 B.c.,

© Knowledge of the length of service rests on Polybius (v1.19.2), but the text is corrupt. The
manuscripts give ten years in the cavalry and six in the infantry as the normal service requirement.
The latter figure is gencrally emended to sixtcen, given that it should be more than that required for
the cavalry (cf. Tab. Heracleensis, [15 6085. 90). Sixteen years were established as the service norm
by Augustus in 13 a.¢. (Dio Liv.25.5, and below, p. 377). 2 Polyb. v1.39.12.

37!

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

372 II. THE ARMY AND THE NAVY

to 225 denarii.3 Out of this sum the soldier had to pay towards his food,
clothing and weaponry.’ Soldiers were armed with an oval shield
(seutum),° one or more throwing javelins (pi/a), a short sword of Spanish
origin (g/adius), a dagger (pugio), and a bronze helmet. They wore shirts of
chain-mail over a leather tunic, and leather sandals.

The individual legion was a body of some 4,000—-5,000 men divided
into ten cohorts; in battle these could be arranged in three lines, but other
dispositions are known. Each cohort was made up of six centuries, each
commanded by a centurion. The centurions were soldiers of many years’
experience, normally promoted from the ranks. The legions were given
numerals on formation, and might remain in service for several years;
but there was no permanent ‘army list’.

The legions of a province came under the direct control of the
proconsul or propraetor who was its governor. The legions raised each
year were distributed according to current needs; some provinces had no
legions at all, and might lie exposed to unexpected attack. The legion had
no individual commander, but day-to-day responsibility lay with the
military tribunes, six to each legion, who held command by rotation in
pairs. This lack of a single permanent commanding officer in the legion
had not seemed very important when armies were small and under the
direct eye of the proconsul or propraetor, but as armies grew in size and
the geographical extent of provinces and areas of military operations
increased, some delegation of responsibility became essential. From the
later third century legates were appointed, to act as assistants to the
magistrate. These legates were senators, varying in age and military
experience, to whom some part of the military or juridical duties could
be delegated. Legates were placed in command of one or more legions,
but had no long-term link within any particular unit.

No rewards were envisaged at the end of the individual’s military
service; men returned home to their families, to take up the threads of
civilian life. Only in exceptional circumstances might they be specifically
rewarded for their years of service, with a cash donative at the time of a
triumph, or with a land grant on discharge, should their commander
make a special effort to obtain it.

The.legions had always been supported in battle by contingents drawn
from their allies. Up till 90 B.c. these consisted mainly of detachments
from the towns of Italy, grouped together to form alae sociorum. In
addition infantry and cavalry had been, and continued after go B.c. to be,
raised in the provinces and from allied kingdoms, often those in the

3 Suet. Ind. 26.3. * Polyb. v1.39.15; cf. Tac. Aan. 1.17.
5 Different from the more familiar rectangular shield of the Principate (below, p. 379); illustrated
at Keppie 1984 (D 202) 112-13, pl. 3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE CIVIL WARS 373

immediate area of the war zone; each group served under its own
chieftains and aristocracy, with Roman praefecti in overall control. Some
regiments, including bodies of Cretan archers and Numidian cavalry,
seem to have been kept in Roman service on a more permanent basis, and
served throughout the Mediterranean.

Just as the size of the army fluctuated according to the needs, of the
moment, so also did the navy. Only a few ships were maintained in
permanent commission in Italian ports or in dock, to be supplemented
by the summoning of squadrons from allied states in the Aegean and
eastern Mediterranean. A governor might appoint one of his legates to
command such fleets; the ships’ captains offered him professional advice.
The lack of a navy adequate to keep sea lanes open was particularly
evident in the 7os B.c. when pirate squadrons from bases in Cilicia
operated openly and with success in the Mediterranean.

Il. THE ARMY IN THE CIVIL WARS, 49-30 B.C.

The onset of civil war in 49 B.c. between Caesar and the legitimate forces
of the Republic brought a swift military build-up. The legions then
serving under Caesar in Gaul, numbered in a set sequence from V to
XIV, formed the basis of his army thereafter. In the months following
the invasion of Italy and during his consulship in 48, Caesar formed
many more legions, probably numbered I-IV (the numerals tradition-
ally reserved each year for the consuls to use) and from XV to about
X XXIII. After Pompey’s defeat three or four more were formed out of
the latter’s soldiers, so that by 47 B.c. the number of legions in service
stood at a minimum of about 36-8; all but a few had been raised or
reconstituted under Caesar’s direct command. With the ending of
effective resistance, Caesar’s longest serving legions (composed of men
who had been with him in Gaul and who had over the years agitated
several times, and with good cause, for release) were discharged and
settled in colonies in Italy and southern Gaul. New legions were raised to
replace them. Caesar evidently intended a tight grip over Roman
territory, some of it newly won. Sixteen of the legions, drawn largely
from the garrisons of Macedonia and Syria, were to participate in the
planned Parthian campaign.

But fate decreed otherwise. Caesar’s assassination was ill-received by
the serving legionaries and by the discharged veterans, most of whom
had by now received the promised allotments and were settling to a new
life. In the months following Caesar’s death several of the protagonists,
jostling for position and power, drew to their side groups of Caesar’s
veterans; many, perhaps all, of the recently disbanded legions were

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

8007 ‘sserg AtssoaTUQ aSprquiey IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

(atdday sayy) ‘o°a bb ‘suol83] Jo uoNNgisIq *z ‘31J

THE CIVIL WARS 375

reconstituted. Much emphasis was placed on their glorious antecedents;
they formed the backbone of the triumviral army for the Philippi
campaign and played a significant role in the victory.

After Philippi Caesar’s veterans, together with time-served men of the
extensive levies of 49—48 B.c., who had now fulfilled the six-year service
norm, some 40,000 men in all, were released and given land in Italy.
Many of the towns selected (e.g. Capua, Ariminum, Bononia)® lay at
important road junctions, controlling access to Rome. Eleven legions
were formed now from those who had not yet served the six-year
minimum; many bore the old numerals and titles of formations which
had been prominent in the service of Caesar and subsequently the
triumvirs, and had fought at Philippi. Those legions, with their battle-
honours, titles and emblems, had become household names and were
important as visible supporters of the triumvirs, the natural successors of
the dead and deified Caesar. After the sea battle at Actium, in which the
legions had played little part, a week of negotiation ensured that
Antony’s soldiers received adequate rewards for their long years of
service: land in the provinces, but probably not in Italy itself. Some of
the most senior of the Antonian legions were accepted intact into
Octavian’s army. Octavian could pose as reuniting the old Caesarian
army under himself as the dictator’s intended heir. His own legions
received land in Italy, in twenty-eight colonies.’ The legions which
emerged from the civil wars were to remain in permanent commission
throughout the following three centuries or more, unless disgraced or
destroyed in battle.

Bodies of native infantry and cavalry serving with the legions on
campaign in the civil wars of the later first century B.c. are repeatedly
mentioned in the literary sources. They were numbered in thousands,
and formed an important adjunct to the armies of each protagonist.
Bodies of slingers, foot-archers, horse-archers and even elephants are
reported. Caesar’s wide-ranging campaigns carried Gallic, German and
Spanish troops to the furthest corners of the empire; 10,000 Spanish and
Gallic cavalry participated in Antony’s Armenian campaign.® Octavian
continued to recruit auxiliaries from the western provinces under his
control. In the East Pompey, the Liberators and later Antony were able
to draw on the armies of client kings in Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria,
Judaea and Egypt, summoned to service by virtue of treaty obligations
or force majeure. They often served (as during the Republic) under their
tribal chief, or a member of his family, or local nobility. Contingents of

6 App. BCiv iv.3.
7 RG 28.2. For a decree of Octavian conferring practical benefits on veterans in a provincial
context, CIL xvi, p. 145, no. 10= EJ? 302. ® Plut. Aas. 37.3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

376 Il. THE ARMY AND THE NAVY

varying strength are reported, and it is uncertain whether they were yet
organized into regiments of standard size.

Seapower and the ability to transport troops overseas became import-
ant in the civil wars. Substantial fleets, gathered by Pompey, and later by
the Liberators, Sextus Pompeius and Antony from the allied states of the
Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean, made a formidable force.
Octavian had much less opportunity to gain access to warships from
these traditional sources, and was forced to build up his own navy almost
from scratch. After initial setbacks through inexperience and ill-luck,
this new fleet was to prove superior in the end, at Mylae, Naulochus and
Actium.® In the mid-30s, in preparation for an offensive against Sextus
Pompeius, Agrippa saw to the construction of a major harbour and
stores complex at Lake Avernus on the Bay of Naples; it was given the
name Portus Iulius in honour of Octavian. Foundations of some of its
quayside buildings have been located below the shallow waters of the
bay.10

Squadrons of ships with legionaries on board acting as marines
cruised in the Mediterranean; some civil-war legions even adopted the
title Classica, an epithet which must reflect their service at sea.!! At
Actium we know that Antony embarked 20,000 legionaries (i.e. four
legions) for the battle, and Octavian placed eight legions on his ships
(including legion’ XI, some of whose veterans adopted a surname
Actiacus in later years, in proud commemoration of their role), together
with five praetorian cohorts.!2

II]. THE ARMY AND NAVY OF AUGUSTUS
1. The Legions

By the middle of Augustus’ reign the number of legions in service stood
at twenty-eight. Almost all had seen service in the civil wars. They were
numbered from I to XXII, with some numerals duplicated, the result of
the acceptance into an already complete sequence of Antonian legions
after Actium. The highest number in the sequence is XXII, a legion
surnamed Deiotariana to commemorate King Deiotarus of Galatia, an
ally of Pompey and later Caesar in the civil wars, who had raised local
troops on the Roman model. The legion seems likely to have gained its
numeral by 25 B.c. at the latest, when the kingdom of Galatia was

9 Fora Cilician navarch who served Octavian and was suitably rewarded, see P. Roussel, Syria 15
(1934) 33-74; CIL xvi, p. 145, no. 11= EJ 301.

10 Strab. v.4.5 (244c); Vell. Pat. 1.79.2; Virg. G. 11.161; Suet. Aug. 16.1; G. Schmiedt (ed.),
Atlante aereofotografico delle sedi umane in Italia; parte I, le sedi antiche scomparse (Firenze, 1970) tav.
CXXXVi. ILS 2231, 2232.

12 Plut. Ant. 64; Oros. v1.19.8; L.J.F. Keppie, CR 85(1971) 329-30.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTUS 377

incorporated into the empire. The Augustan sequence of legions had
thus reached its final form by that date, and older theories about the
gradual increase in forces throughout the reign, and especially at the time
of the Pannonian revolt and the Varian disaster, can be set aside.

The legions were disposed in the frontier provinces of the empire,
mostly in those provinces controlled by Augustus himself through his
legates. As new provinces were added under Augustus, the legions
moved forward to aid in the conquest. The precise areas of service of
many legions are unknown in the Augustan period; much movement of
forces can be assumed as provinces were pacified or extended. Fora time
Egypt had three legions; by a.D. 23 the garrison was reduced to two.!3
Spain in the 20s B.c. had upwards of seven legions; by about a.p. 14 the
garrison had been cut to three.!4 The loss of three legions (numbered
XVII, X VIII and XIX) on the Rhine frontier in a.D. 9 with Varus led to
substantial westward transfers to fill the gap.!5 In all, twenty-five legions
were in service at the close of the reign. The total had not been increased
to match the enlargement of the areas to be controlled, or to make good
the losses of A.D. 9: the financial burden was simply too great.

Throughout the late Republic the length of service required of a man
joining the legions had been a minimum of six years. But the civil wars
witnessed a lengthening of the period spent with the standards. Some-
times, it is clear, men were willing to remain under arms, but others
certainly were not, and made their feelings clear whenever the oppor-
tunity arose. In 16~14 B.c. Augustus and Agrippa oversaw a substantial
programme of colonization and land-settlement in the provinces, very
probably to cater for men who had enlisted in the aftermath of Actium.
On his return to Rome in 13 Augustus ordained that army service in the
legions should in future be for a fixed term of sixteen years (which had in
any case been the republican maximum, though not the norm), and that
those who survived would obtain a cash reward, in place of the land
allotments which had become common in recent decades, especially
during the civil wars. Cassius Dio’s report!® indicates that the soldiers
would still have preferred land, but it was no longer politically
acceptable to establish colonies in Italy itself, with the attendant ill-
feeling and disruption. The sixteen years of service were to be followed
by a further four years in reserve. (This too had a republican precedent,
as men could be asked to serve a maximum of twenty years in times of
special danger.)'7 In a.p. 5 the service requirement was further increased,
to a minimum of twenty years, plus five in reserve. There is no record of
the amount of gratuity fixed in 13 B.c., but Dio’s account of the new
regulations implies that in A.D. 5 it was increased to 3,000 denarii.'8

3 Strab. xvit.1.12 (797-8¢); Tac. Aan. tv.s. Speidel 1982 (E 969). 14 Jones 1976 (E 226).
'S Syme 1933 (D 238). 16 Liv.zs.5. 7 Polyb. vt.19.4. 18 Dio Lv.23.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

378 Il. THE ARMY AND THE NAVY

Centurions were paid at much higher rates, and could become wealthy
men. To deal with the problem of financing the army, Augustus in A.D. 5
began by proposing that public funds be allocated annually for military
pay and rewards.!9 This proposal came to nothing, and in the following
year he took the initiative in establishing an aerarium militare (military
treasury); Augustus himself provided pump-priming funds, and intro-
duced a 5 per cent tax on inheritances, none too popular with the
citizenry, which, together with the proceeds from an evidently pre-
existing 1 per cent tax on auctions, went to maintaining its cash
reserves.20 The purpose of the aerarium militare was to dispense cash
gratuities to time-served veterans.?! Whether the aerarium also provided
funds to pay serving soldiers — as might seem natural and as both Dio and
Suetonius seem to indicate — is not clear;22 but the soldiers themselves
thought of both their pay and their gratuities as coming direct from the
emperor. By fixing cash rewards and regulating the length of service to
be completed before receiving them, Augustus swept away the uncer-
tainties of past generations. Yet he and his successors did not always live
up to their responsibilities.23 Soldiers were forbidden, probably by
Augustus, to marry during service, and any marriages already existing
were dissolved on enlistment.24 Voluntary enlistment was preferred, but
conscription was employed as the occasion demanded, notably in a.p. 6
after the outbreak of the Pannonian revolt, and in a.D. 9 after the Varus
disaster.25

During Augustus’ reign changes were introduced in the command
structure of the legions, which took account of the fact that they had
become permanent, self-perpetuating formations. Legates, usually ex-
praetors, but sometimes ex-quaestors, ex-aediles and ex-plebeian tri-
bunes, began to be appointed by Augustus directly to command a
specific legion and held office, with the title /egatus legionis (legionary
legate), for a period of several years. An equestrian officer with the title
praefectus castrorum (prefect of the camp) was appointed to supervise the
running of each legion’s permanent base-camp. The military tribunes
remained, but in the hierarchy of command ranked below the praefectus
castrorum, except that one of their number who held senatorial status
necessarily outranked the praefectus, and nominally at least was second-
in-command below the legate. In Egypt, from which senators were
excluded, command of a legion fell to the praefectus castrorum. So far as
can be determined, the internal organization of the legion remained
unchanged, except that a small body of cavalry (the equtes legionis) was

19 Dio Lv.24.9.

20 Dio Lv.24.9; Suet. Aug. 49.2; cf. Tac. Ann. 1.78, 11.42; Suet. Calig. 16; Dio L1x.9.6.
21 RG 17. 22 Corbier 1977 (D 123).

23 Below, p. 379; cf. also Suet. Tib. 48, Calig, 44, Ner. 32.1.

24 Dio Lx.24.3; Campbell 1978 (p 172). 25 Suet. Aug. 24.1; Tac. Ann, 1.16ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTUS 379

added to its complement, seemingly for escort and scouting duties.”6 The
size of the legion, at full strength, was probably about 5 ,o00~5,200 men.

Some alterations in equipment can be detected from the archaeologi-
cal and sculptural record: the oval shield gave way to a curving
rectangular or near-rectangular shield, and the shirt of chain mail to a
cuirass of articulated iron strips (the /orica segmentata). The new shape of
shield and sophisticated body-armour afforded greater protection to the
individual soldier. Whether the changes were imposed from Rome, or
came about more gradually is not yet clear. Later it seems that there
might bea substantial variation in equipment between provincial armies.
Archaeological evidence has also identified some of the army’s tempor-
ary and permanent installations of this time, especially along and beyond
the Rhine.2? In other provinces little is known, though for Spain
mention can be made of the recently identified legionary fortress at
Rosinos de Vidriales south of Astorga, which seems likely to have been
built before the end of Augustus’ reign.?8

Augustus had introduced fundamental changes, which were not
universally popular. In a.p. 14, when his death was announced to the
legions on the Rhine and in Pannonia, the legionaries.saw a chance to
voice their grievances: long service (well beyond the limits set down by
Augustus), low rates of pay, harshness and corruption of the centurions,
and a prospect for the survivors of settlement on poor upland soils far
from home.?? The legionaries asked to be released at the end of sixteen
years (the old republican maximum) and to have their praemia militiae
(rewards of military service) in cash, paid immediately upon release.
Concessions extorted from Germanicus were rescinded in a.p. 15.39

2. Auxiliary forces

The task of maintaining the integrity of the empire did not fall on the
legions alone; it was shared between Rome and her subject peoples. With
the close of the civil wars, many of the regiments formed from tribal
groups and allied kingdoms were disbanded or went home, but others,
whose lifespan had been lengthened out by the civil wars and had
acquired a permanence akin to the legions, seem likely to have been
retained to act in support of the legions in the wars of Augustus’ reign.?!
Such forces were normally supplemented, in time of active war, by
substantial bodies of troops drawn from client states and tribes in close
proximity to the theatre of operations; there was at this time no clear
dividing line between the two categories. These auxilia (or auxiliares)

% Breeze 1969 (D 166). 7 See below, pp. 524-8. 8 _Le Roux 1982 (E 228) 105.
2% Tac. Aan. 1.17ff, 78; Wilkes 1963 (c 414). »% Tac. Ann. 1.78.
31 Saddington 1982 (p 227).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

380 Il. THE ARMY AND THE NAVY

Fig. 3. Rédgen, Germany: ground-plan of Augustan supply base. (After Schnberger and Simon.)
A growing number of installations have been identified east of the Rhine, which can be related to the
various campaigns between 13 B.C. and a.D. 16. The supply base at Rédgen had an area of 3.3
hectares (8 acres). Within a rampart and double ditch were a number of timber-framed buildings:
three granaries (a—c), a headquarters or commandant’s house (d), and barracks (e). There were 4
gates (1-4); the chief entrance lay on the east side.

were formed (now, if not earlier) into cohortes (cohorts) of infantry and
alae (wings) of cavalry. There were also some regiments which combined
infantry and cavalry; these were termed cohortes equitatae. Most regiments
were about 500 men strong.

The auxiliaries of the early Empire were usually drawn from the non-
citizen populations of newly won provinces of the empire, often those
under the emperor’s direct control. Regiments attested under Augustus

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTUS 381

or his immediate successors were drawn from Gaul, Spain, the Rhine-
land and the Alpine territories, Dalmatia, the Danube lands and Thrace,
north Africa and the East. Recruitment (initially, ic must be supposed,
under treaty obligations), served to draw off the young tribesmen and
harness their vigour in the empire’s defence.32 Often, regiments were
stationed in, or close to, their area of origin, and local deployment was
taken for granted. The cohortes and a/ae were normally named after the
tribe from which they were recruited (e.g. cohors VI Nerviorum from the
Nervii of Gallia Belgica), or the name of the city-state of origin in the
more urbanized East (e.g. ala I Hamiorum, from the town of Hama in
Syria). A few regiments, mainly a/ae of cavalry, were named in honour of
distinguished Romans (for example, a/a Agrippiana, probably from
Agrippa), or sometimes after their founder or first prefect (for example,
the ala Scaevae, from Caesar’s stalwart centurion, ala A tectorigiana, after a
Gaul Atectorix, and a/a Indiana, from lulius Indus). Recruitment from
the homeland was kept up; very probably this was part of the treaty
obligation. Auxiliary regiments were equipped according to local
custom and tradition, with the weapons they knew well. Those regi-
ments stationed along a major frontier such as the Rhine lay in close
proximity to the legionary encampments.

Tacitus, in a valuable comment, notes the strength of auxiliary forces
in A.D. 23 as about the same as the legions, i.e. some 150,000 men.3 It was
not, he felt, worthwhile giving the numbers in each province, as these
did not remain constant; indeed the total in service fluctuated according
to the needs of the moment. Few regiments in service under Augustus
can be identified by name from the epigraphic evidence, and the listing of
provincial garrisons hardly becomes possible before the Flavian period.
Conditions of service at this time are not well attested: whether or not
auxiliary regiments supplied under treaty obligations always received
pay from Augustus is uncertain. There may have been no standard
length of service — some auxiliaries are known to have served over thirty
years. It is unlikely that any gratuity was automatically payable on
completion of service, but individuals might be rewarded, with citizen-
ship, privileges and cash bounties.¥

Legions and auxiliaries operated in tandem on campaign: Varus in
Germany in A.D. 9 marched with six cohorts of infantry and three a/ae of
cavalry, in addition to his three legions. Tiberius at Sirmium in a.p. 7
mustered ten legions, more than seventy cohorts, and ten a/ae.*5 In any
garrison cohorts of infantry were normally in the majority.

Regiments of auxilia were commanded by prefects, with the title
praefectus cohortis (of infantry) or praefectus equitum (of an ala of cavalry).

32 Dio Liv.22.5. 33 Tac. Ann. tv.5. 4 ILS 2531. 35 Vell. Pat. 11.117.1, 1413.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

382 II. THE ARMY AND THE NAVY

Often the prefects were tribal nobles, though the closeness of the link
with their tribe is sometimes obscured by the Roman names they bore as
a result of an individual grant of citizenship. Arminius, later to spearhead
the successful resistance to Roman domination east of the Rhine, had
gained Roman citizenship and equestrian status in return for his military
exploits, probably as a praefectus, in the wars of Augustus’ reign.> Where
Roman officers were appointed as prefects, these were often centurions
of substantial military experience, especially primipilares (former chief
centurions of a legion), or men of equestrian rank, often former tribunes
in a legion. For a time Augustus appointed sons of senators in pairs to
command a/ae, seemingly as an alternative to the legionary tribunate.3”
There was as yet no set sequence or hierarchy in the grading of such
appointments.

Excessive reliance on the military potential of recently subjected
peoples entailed some risk. Loyalty to the communities from which they
had been raised might prove stronger than to Rome. The Pannonian
revolt in A.D. 6 was fuelled by an unwise concentration of Dalmatian
auxiliaries for the campaign against Maroboduus, when the auxiliaries
saw a chance to throw off the Roman yoke.78

Regiments were formed on the Roman model in the territories of
client kings, especially in the East. Herod used Roman officers to
command his forces, which included Gauls and Germans.3® Marobo-
duus, on the fringe of the Roman world, based the organization and
training of his own forces on the successful Roman exemplar.4° Rather
later, during the reign of Tiberius, cohorts nominally serving a client
king in Thrace mutinied on the rumour that they were to be posted away
from their homeland, and their ethnic homogeneity diluted; fierce
fighting ensued before they admitted defeat.*!

A few auxiliary cohorts were raised among Roman citizens. Under the
Empire there are records of at least six cohortes ingenuorum civium
Romanorum (‘cohorts of freeborn Roman citizens’) anda large number (at
least thirty-two) cohortes voluntariorum civium Romanorum (‘cohorts of
Roman citizen volunteers’). Almost certainly the creation of these
regiments belongs during the crises of A.D. 6-9. The literary sources are
unanimous in emphasizing the difficulties faced by Augustus in raising
extra forces to meet these emergencies.*? A dilectus ingenuorum (‘levy of
free men’) was held at Rome itself in a.p. 9; in part this supplied recruits

3% Vell. Pat. 11.118.
37 Suet. Aug. 38.2. For examples, see ILS 911 = EJ? 195 = H. Devijver, Prosopographia Militiarum
Equestrium quae fuerunt ab Augusto ad Gallienum (Leuven, 1977) (hereafter PME), N.15; ILS

912= PME a 162; CIL vi 3516 = PME c 257. 38 Dio tv.29.1; cf. Tac. Ann. 111.41-2.
39 Joseph. BJ 1.20(397), 1.27(5 35), 1-3 3(672), 11.3(52), 11.5(74)-
© Vell. Pat. 11.109.1. 41 Tac. Ann. v.46.

* Dio tv.31, yvi.23; Vell. Pat. 11.111; Pliny, HN vit.149; Suet. Aug. 25.2.
4&3 AE 1973, sot = EJ? 368; Tac. Ana. 1.16, 31; Brunt 1974 (B 214).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTUS 383

for the legions, but it may also have produced the cohbortes ingenuorum,
from men unfit or unsuitable for the legions. The cohortes voluntariorum
c.R. seem likely to have been formed out of freed slaves summoned to
service by Augustus; the epithet vo/untariorum highlights a willingness to
serve not shared by other elements of society.44 A few other citizen
cohorts seem also to have been raised early in Augustus’ reign in Italy
and beyond. The commanders of these citizen cohorts were styled
tribunes. Their intermediate status, between legionaries and auxiliaries,
was emphasized in Augustus’ will in A.D. 14: they received the same
donative as legionaries.*5 Later it seems that they were treated as
auxiliaries and drew their manpower from non-citizens.

3. The navy

The value of retaining a substantial fleet in permanent commission had
been amply demonstrated during the civil wars. Two major bases were
established by Octavian in the years immediately following Actium: one
was placed at Cape Misenum, at the western end of the Bay of Naples
(replacing Portus Iulius, which was abandoned, despite the considerable
efforts expended on its construction). The other base was at Ravenna,
near the head of the Adriatic. From 31 B.c. (or even earlier) a squadron
was maintained at Forum lulii (Fréjus) on the south coast of Gaul where
substantial storage and administrative buildings have been postulated;
but the base there soon ceased to havea major role.*” From later evidence
it seems that ships based at Misenum patrolled the western Mediterra-
nean and the coastline of Africa and Egypt, while those at Ravenna had a
more restricted role in the Adriatic and the Aegean. Both major fleets
had out-stations on Corsica and Sardinia, at Ostia and at Rome itself.
The combined strength of the two major fleets can be estimated only
roughly, at about 15,000-20,000 men, perhaps manning some 75—100
ships. Their crews formed a useful source of trained manpower within
Italy. From epigraphic sources and sculptured reliefs it can be seen that
the ships were mainly triremes, with a few quadriremes, together with
some light vessels, known as liburnians. The ships were individually
named, after rivers, gods, goddesses, and personifications, male and
female. Individual ships were commanded by trierarchs, squadrons by
navarchs, and each of the major fleets by a praefectus classis. The strong
tradition of seamanship in the Greek East and the lack of matching
Roman expertise is reflected in the Greek names given to the ships, the

# Dio Lv.31.1, Lvt.23.3; Vell. Pat. it.r11.1; Suet. Aug. 25.2. Note especially Macrob. Sat.
1.11.32. See also Kraft 1951 (& 672) 87ff. 4 Tac. Ann. 1.8. Pliny, HN u1.119.

7 Strab. Iv.1.9 (184); Tac. Aan. tv.5, Hist. 111.43; Cf. ILS 2688= PME a 201 for a praefectus
elassis there under Tiberius. Tac. Hist. 111.43 implies that the port retained some importance in A.D.

69.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

384 Il. THE ARMY AND THE NAVY

titles of officers and skilled personnel; under Augustus trierarchs and
navarchs were often recruited from maritime city-states of the East. The
fleet-prefects at this time were usually ex-legionary tribunes or ex-chief
centurions. The crews were drawn from non-citizen provincials,
together with some freedmen; slaves, briefly employed in the civil wars
of the late Republic when manpower was scarce, were not used.
Sentencing criminals to the galleys was not a punishment employed in
Roman times. The crews were organized on a military model, with
oarsmen and marines forming a centuria, under the command of a (non-
citizen) centurion. The fleets kept the Mediterranean safe for merchant
shipping; very little is heard about piracy.

4. The praetorian guard and other troops at Rome

In the Republic a magistrate on campaign in his province regularly
formed a small bodyguard from the troops at his disposal. It was given
the name cobors praetoria (‘commander’s cohort’). Caesar never formed
such a battalion, though he once flattered the soldiers of legion X by
claiming that they fulfilled this role.48 In the civil wars several com-
manders are known to have had praetorian cohorts. After Philippi 8,000
time-served veterans who rejected the proffered land-allotments were
retained by Octavian and Antony to serve as praetorians.49 At Actium
we know that Octavian had five cohorts present, of uncertain size; rather
earlier there is a report that Antony had three cohorts.*°

After Actium, Octavian continued to employ cohortes praetoriae which
became a permanent ‘household division’; they were attached to the
military headquarters (praetorium) which he maintained as a proconsul.
In A.D. 23 nine cohorts were in being.5! At first, for political reasons,
Augustus based only three of the cohorts at Rome itself, and had them
billeted about the city in small groups, to avoid the overt appearance of
armed force.5? Initially the cohorts were responsible directly to Augus-
tus himself, but in 2 B.c. he appointed two equestrians as praefecti
praetorio, i.e. prefects of the praetorium.53 These were men of administra-
tive ability rather than military expertise. Normally, throughout the
Julio-Claudian period, there continued to be two prefects, but on
occasion a single individual held sole command (Aelius Seianus, 14-31;
Sutorius Macro, 31—8; Afranius Burrus, 5 1-62). The role of the cohorts
was to support the emperor’s position in Rome, and accompany him on
his travels. They served too as ceremonial troops on state occasions.

During the civil wars the manpower of praetorian cohorts had been
drawn from time-served veterans, or men of long experience, heavy with

#8 Caes. BGall. 1.42. 49 App. BCw. v.3. 3% Oros. vi.19.8; Plut. Aa?. 39, $3.
51 Tac. Aan. 1.5. 52 Suet. Aug. 49, Tib. 37.1; Tac. Aan. 1v.2. 53 Dio Lv.10.10.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTUS 385

honour and medals.54 They were thus an elite force made up of specially
chosen individuals. However under Augustus (and later) the praetorians
were recruited directly from civilian life, in Italy itself; at first recruits
were drawn chiefly from Latium, Etruria and Umbria, and from the old
colonies of the Republic.55 In 13 B.c. service in the praetorian cohorts
was fixed at twelve years, later increased in A.D. 5 to sixteen years.5° Pay
was set at well above the legionary rate; by a.p. 14 it had risen to 750
denarii per year.5’ The legionaries far away in the frontier provinces of
the empire soon became jealous of the privileged position and higher pay
of the praetorians.*8

The nine cohorts of the guard (if we may use this term, which has no
Latin equivalent) were each commanded by a tribune; most tribunes had
already been primus pilus (chief centurion) in a legion. The size of each
cohort under Augustus is not reported, but it most probably consisted of
480 men on the legionary model, divided into centuries of eighty men.
The praetorians were armed as legionaries, but interestingly they
retained into the Empire some of the equipment used by soldiers of the
late Republic. The ceremonial uniforms of Britain’s Guards Brigade may
be compared. On duty in Rome the praetorians carried weapons, but
wore civilian dress.5? Each cohort had a small cavalry component.

To match the three praetorian cohorts stationed at Rome itself, three
cohortes urbanae were formed, soon to be placed under the supervision of a
senatorial praefectus urbi. These urban cohorts served as a police force for
the city. A fourth cohort was soon formed, and stationed at Lugdunum,
presumably to protect the imperial mint there.© The cohorts, which
were commanded by tribunes (ex-chief centurions), were probably 480
men strong. Soldiers of the urban cohorts at Rome (numbered X-XII, in
continuation of the praetorian series) had to serve for twenty years.

In a.D. 6, seven cohortes vigilum (of uncertain initial size) were formed as
a fire-watch for the fourteen regiones into which Augustus had divided the
city, under an equestrian praefectus vigilum.®' The establishment of this
permanent force replaced earlier haphazard attempts to protect the city
from all too frequent conflagrations; the vigi/es may also have acted as a
night-time police force, but they were not armed as soldiers. Members of
the cohorts were freedmen; from later evidence it may be inferred that
after six years (which may have been the service norm), they obtained full
citizenship. The cohortes vigilum were officered by tribunes who had been
chief centurions of a legion.

For his personal protection Augustus established a small body of

App. BCiv. 111. 45, 67-9, V-3, 95; Plut. Ant. 53. 55 Tac. Ann. v.5.

5% Dio Liv.25.6, LV.23.1. 57 Dio uut.11.5; Tac. Aan. 1.8.

$8 Tac. Ann. 1.17; Hist. 11.67, 92-4. 3% Tac. Ann. xvi.27, Hist. 1.38.

® Tac. Ann. 11.41. $1 Dio Lv.26.4; Strab. v.3.7 (234—5c); Suet. Ang. 25.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUQ aSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

Cardday ayy) #1 ‘ary ‘suor8ay 30 uonquaisiIg “Y “81g

se|nw OOS
$$ gprrrre ny rnr
Ww 0004

osé

Tee wwee'

a.
gjuouued -

THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS 387

mounted bodyguards, the Germani corporis custodes, recruited from
Rhineland tribes, principally Batavians.6¢ This force, the successor to
bodyguards recruited during the civil wars of the late Republic,
remained in being until disbanded by Galba.

Iv. ARMY AND NAVY UNDER THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS

When expansionist policies were abandoned late in Augustus’ reign, the
empire settled to a generation of peaceful development. The army was
stationed largely along the outer limits of the empire, and was principally
engaged in the consolidation of Roman control. As time passed, large
concentrations of military forces, assembled at strategic points along the
frontiers in preparation for further advance, gave way to a more even
distribution. Temporary encampments gradually took on a more perma-
nent air. The role of the army became increasingly defensive, greater
attention being paid to preserving the integrity of those areas controlled
by Rome against attack from without. This attitude was to lead, from the
later first century onwards, to the physical construction of frontier lines
which in some areas constituted a clear demarcation line between land
under full Roman control and the tribes beyond.

The distribution of the legions at the death of Augustus can be fairly
well defined, though the location of individual legions within a province
may remain somewhat uncertain.® The army of a province could consist
of up to four legions (Syria and the two German ‘districts’ each had
four), along with auxiliaries in perhaps a roughly equal number. Some
provinces, less threatened by external foes, had a garrison consisting of
auxiliary cohortes and alae, but no legions. The epigraphic evidence,
which increases enormously in volume as the century progresses, allows
a picture to be built up of dispositions and transfers of legions and
auxiliaries, as imperial policies (or external pressures) changed. A careful
balance was evidently maintained between the total strength of forces on
the Rhine, on the Danube and in the East. The needs of a major
campaign for additional troops in a particular area were met by the
temporary, sometimes permanent, transfers of legions and auxiliary
troops. For example, legion IX Hispana was sent from the Danube to
Africa for four years in the middle of Tiberius’ reign; in the course of
Corbulo’s campaigns in the East, three legions were transferred in
succession from the Balkans to augment his forces. Thus pressure on
one frontier of the empire was often met by weakening the defences at
another. Soon, however, the practice developed of putting together
vexillationes (detachments) from the increasingly static garrisons to form

62 Bellen 1981 (D 160); Speidel 1984 (D 236).

63 Tac. Ann. 1v.3 gives the disposition of the Roman army in a.D. 23.
Tac. Ann. Lg, 1V.23, X11. 35, Xv.6, 25.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

388

II. THE ARMY AND THE NAVY

Table 3 The legions of the early Empire

Legion

I Germanica

I Adiutrix

II Adiutrix

I Italica

II Augusta

III Augusta

III Cyrenaica
III Gallica

IV Macedonica
IV Scythica

IV Flavia

V Alaudae

V Macedonica
VI Ferrata

VI Victrix

VII Claudia
VII Gemina
VIII Augusta
IX Hispana

X Fretensis

X Gemina

XI Claudia
XII Fulminata
XIII] Gemina
XIV Gemina
XI Apollinaris
XV Primigenia
XVI Gallica
XVI Flavia
XVII

XVII

XIX

XX Valeria
XXI Rapax
XXII Deiotariana
XXII Primigenia

Total in service:

Station in a.p. 14

Lower Germany
(formed a.p. 68)
(formed A.p. 69)
(formed a.p. 66)
Upper Germany
Africa

Egypt

Syria

Spain

Moesia

(formed A.D. 69-70)
Lower Germany
Moesia

Syria

Spain

Dalmatia

(formed A.D. 68)
Pannonia

Pannonia

Syria

Spain

Dalmatia

Syria

Upper Germany
Upper Germany
Pannonia

(formed A.D. 39~42)
Upper Germany
(formed 4.D. 69-70)
(lost with Varus, A.D. 9)
(lost with Varus, A.D. 9)
(lost with Varus, A.D. 9)
Lower Germany
Lower Germany
Egypt

(formed 4.D. 39—42)

A.D. 14
25

Station in A.D. 70

(disbanded a.p. 70)
Upper Germany
Britain

Moesia

Britain

Africa

Egypt

Syria

(disbanded a.p. 70)
Syria

Dalmatia
(disbanded a.p. 70)
Moesia

Syria

Lower Germany
Moesia
Tarraconensis
Upper Germany
Britain

Juddea

Lower Germany
Upper Germany
Cappadocia?®5
Pannonia

Upper Germany
Pannonia
(disbanded a.p. 70)
(disbanded a.p. 70)
Syria®

Britain
Lower Germany

Egypt
Lower Germany

A.D. 70
28 or 29

task-forces, to be sent to another province; this avoided leaving a long
stretch of the frontier devoid of its garrison.” Major campaigns could
still lead to the creation of new legions, which were normally raised in
Italy itself: under Caligula or Claudius two new legions, XV and XXII
Primigenia (First-Born) were formed, to release seasoned troops for the
projected invasion of Britain, in a.D. 66 Nero formed a new legion, I
Italica (Italian), for his planned expedition to the Caucasus. Otherwise

6 AE 1983, 927; D. van Berchem, MH 40 (1983) 185-96. 66 Ibid.
$7 Saxer 1967 (D 228). 68 Ritterling 1925 (D 223) 1758, 1797, 1407; Suet. Ner. 19.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS 389

the number of legions in service remained constant, until the particular
requirements of the civil war after Nero’s death led to the formation of
new legions and its aftermath to the disbandment of several long-
established entities (see Table 3).

The legions of the Republic had been composed of Italians, the
traditional manpower source, though during the civil wars all the
protagonists from Caesar onwards succeeded in augmenting their forces
by forming ‘legions’ from the non-citizen populations of their provinces
and by training and arming them in the Roman manner. Though
Octavian sent home non-Romans found serving in Antony’s legions, he
was prepared soon to accept X XII Deiotariana into his permanent army,
and later in his reign he had recourse to non-Roman sources to fill out the
ranks, especially in the East.®? Italians who had been prepared to serve in
the civil wars for a fairly short term proved unwilling to spend a span of
twenty-five years or more, much of their adult life, in a frontier province
far from home. Greater emphasis was placed on seeking recruits in the
provinces, where (it seems clear) men were eager and willing to serve,
and saw in legionary service a route to social advancement.” Some of
these men would be citizens, sons of Italian families long resident there,
or of colonists of the Caesarian and Augustan periods, but it is suspected
that increasingly non-citizens were enlisted, and given citizenship and
Roman names on enlistment. By the close of the Julio-Claudian age it is
likely that less than half of all legionaries throughout the empire had
been born in Italy; in the East the proportion was probably very small
indeed.

The realization that the empire had all but reached its manageable
limits deprived the army of its traditional role. Long decades of relative
peace could easily sap morale, as Corbulo discovered in Syria early in
Nero’s reign.”! Energetic commanders occupied the troops’ energies
with route marches and manoeuvres; the troops were much involved
with the internal security of the provinces in which they were stationed.
The army also formed a useful reserve of disciplined manpower, to be
drafted in to undertake construction and labouring work, a role the
soldiers deeply detested.’”2 The very presence of the army had a
substantial impact on the developing economies of the provinces; the
soldiers had to be fed and clothed, and had money to spend. At the close
of their military service (which between 4o per cent and 50 per cent
might be likely to survive), most legionaries received a gratuity in cash,
but some were settled (as of old) with land grants in colonies, in or near
the provinces where they had served, and constituted bulwarks of
loyalty to the system which they had once served. Under Claudius

© ILS 2483 =EJ? 261. 7 Tac. Ann. iv.4. 1 Tac. Ann, xit1.35.
7 Plut. Mar. 15; Tac. Ann. 1.20, xt.20, xt1t.53; Suet. Aug. 18.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

39° 11. THE ARMY AND THE NAVY

Fig. 5. Vetera (Xanten), Germany: ground-plan of a double legionary fortress, Neronian date.
(After Bogaers and Riiger.) By the end of Augustus’ reign the chief control points along the west
bank of the Rhine had been established. Little is known of the fortress built at Xanten at that time, or
about Tiberian or Claudian successors. The Neronian fortress was 56 hectares (138 acres) in size.
Note: stone-built headquarters (a), two houses for legates (b, c), workshops (d), tribunes’ houses (e)
and hospital (f). Tacicus vividly describes the siege of Vetera by rebels in a.p. 69, after which the
fortress was resited in a more commanding position.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS 391

veterans of the legions stationed in Britain, then newly added to the
empire, were settled at Colchester (Camulodunum), those of the Rhine
legions at Cologne and those of Syria at Akko (Ptolemais). An attempt
by Nero to resume colonization in Italy itself met with little success.73

While legionary organization and service conditions under the early
Empire were more or less fixed by the time of the death of Augustus, the
auxiliary forces and the fleet took longer to reach their permanent form.
An important stage in the integration of auxiliaries into the armed forces
of the empire belongs under Claudius, who regularized the system of
rewards for honourable service: citizenship after twenty-five years of
that service (which might continue longer), and the regularization of any
marriage contracted during service, so that children already born
obtained citizenship, as well as any born to the same couple in the future.
These grants were recorded on pocket-sized, folding bronze tablets
called diplomas, presented to the soldier as documentary proof of his
privileges.74 These grants were seen as an important inducement to
enlistment and made a useful contribution to the spread of citizenship in
the provinces, which was seen as allied to loyal service to the emperor.
Regiments continued to be formed, mainly in newly acquired territories
such as Britain. When a client kingdom was absorbed, its army might be
taken over into the Roman service.”> By the death of Nero the total
number of auxiliaries under arms, or available for service, was probably
near 200,000. We still cannot name all the cohortes and a/ae in existence, or
pinpoint where they served.

As the legions began to be spaced out along the frontiers of the
empire, so too we find a more piecemeal distribution of auxiliary
regiments placed singly or in pairs. The earliest recognizable ground-
plans of forts, at such sites as Valkenburg, Hofheim and Oberstimm,
belong under Claudius. It was perhaps about this time (if not earlier) that
fixed rates of pay were established for auxiliaries. For the Flavian era, the
figures of } or 3 of the legionary’s pay have been proposed, but these seem
over-generous for the Julio-Claudian age.”6

Furthermore, Claudius regulated the sequence of commands held in
auxiliary units and defined more precisely who should hold them. He
ordained that command of auxiliary regiments should be given solely to
equestrians (to the exclusion of primipilares), and that the posts should be
held in a set order: the prefecture of a cohort followed by the prefecture
ofan a/a, followed by the tribunate ofa legion.”” Thus he rated the post in
a citizen legion more highly than independent command over a body of

% Tac. Ann. xii1.31, x1v.27; Suet. Ner. 9.

4 CIL. xvi, passim; M.M. Roxan, Roman Military Diplomas, 1954-77 (London 1978); eadem,
Roman Military Diplomas, 1978—-&4, (London, 1985). 5 E.g. Tac. Hist. 111.47.

76 Speidel 1973 (Dp 233). 7 Suet. Claud. 25.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

392 11. THE ARMY AND THE NAVY

Soe rea

. cmouct,.-; rn

Geset

e----) Clllirtrti------=-
0 50 Sis
Ge es tm

Fig. 6. Valkenburg, Holland: fort-plan, ¢. a.p. 40. (After Glasbergen.) The earliest recognizable
examples of forts built for individual auxiliary regiments belong at this time. Valkenburg, a fort of
1.5 hectares (3.7 acres), was probably built for a cobors quingenaria equitata. Within a rampart and triple
ditch were a timber-built headquarters (a), commandant’s house (b), long barracks, for cavalry? (c)
hospital (d), and barracks (e).

non-citizen auxiliaries. Some examples of this sequence can be docu-
mented within Claudius’ reign,’ but it did not become universal: by
Nero’s death (or at least in the aftermath of the civil war of A.D. 68—G9) it
had become normal for the tribunate of the legion to be held between the
two prefectures rather than after both. Centurions were excluded from
these commands, but a set sequence of tribunates in the cohorts at Rome
became the preserve of the primipilares: a tribunate in a cohort of vigiles
would be followed by that of an urban cohort and finally that of a cohort

78 CIL 11 4239= PME P 96; (?) CIL v 4058= PME ¢ 25; ILS 2681=GCN 280= PME v 137;
AE 1966, 124 = PME p 33; Devijver 1970 (D 178).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 70 393

of the praetorians. These avenues of promotion could lead in due course
to the higher posts in the equestrian civil service as procurators. The
prefectures of the fleets at Misenum and Ravenna were seen as having a
place in the same developing hierarchy; military expertise was not
considered a prerogative for these two posts, which were mainly
administrative, and sometimes an imperial freedman, having the special
trust of the emperor, held one of the fleet prefectures.

It may also have been Claudius who fixed the length of service for fleet
personnel at twenty-six years, with citizenship and regularization of
marriage on discharge, though the earliest secure evidence on the
duration of service belongs under Vespasian.79 Small locally based naval
squadrons came gradually into being, some perhaps already under
Augustus, to police the Rhine, English Channel, the Danube, the Black
Sea, Egypt, Syria and the coasts of north Africa.

In Rome itself the early years of Tiberius saw the concentration of the
nine praetorian cohorts and the three Rome-based urban cohorts in a
fortress built on high ground in the north-eastern outskirts of the city,
beyond the old Servian Wall. It was named the castra praetoria. By A.D. 23
its construction was probably complete.®° Limited excavation — the
interior is again a military enclave — has yielded a partial ground-plan of
its barrack accommodation.®! This concentration of the cohorts can be
ascribed to the initiative of Aelius Seianus, sole praetorian prefect in A.D.
14-31; one almost inevitable consequence was an increase in the
influence of the prefect himself on political events in the city. The
number of praetorian cohorts was increased from nine to twelve before
the death of Claudius, and perhaps much earlier.82

Vv. THE ROMAN ARMY IN A.D. 70

Two detailed accounts survive of the Roman army in action in the last
years of the Julio-Claudian era. Firstly, Josephus provides an apprecia-
tion of the Roman army of the eastern provinces, supported by
auxiliaries and levies from the adjacent client kingdoms, engaged in
traditional warfare against rebellious subjects, the Jews, and a full
account of the reduction of successive military strongholds between a.p.
66 and 73; archaeological evidence of siege-camps round Masada and at
other sites offers dramatic confirmation of the historical record. The
second account is from the hand of Tacitus, the surviving portion of
whose Histories constitutes an almost day-by-day account of the military
events of a.p. 69, when Roman armies from the northern and eastern
provinces mobilized to fight one another. Here the expertise built up

7 CIL xvi 1, 12-17; Mann 1972 (D 214). 8 Tac. Ann. tv.2; Suet. Tib. 37.1; Dio tvit.9.7.
8! Nash 1968 (E 87) z21ff. 82 AE 1978, 286; C. Letta, Athenaeum 56 (1978) 3-19-

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUQ aSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

*€z -arv ‘suorda] 30 uoNnquasig *L “B14

quuewg

A.D. 70 395

over a hundred years was turned against other legionaries, with similar
tactics and weaponry deployed on both sides.

To the Roman public, the army of a.p. 69—70 probably seemed little
different from its counterpart in the days of Julius Caesar. The legionar-
ies wore familiar equipment and marched behind the silver (or some-
times gold) aquila, their legions bearing names and titles which reflected
their origins and the exploits of earlier days. But in reality much had
changed: what had been an army of Italians was now increasingly made
up of provincials owing no particular allegiance to, or common bond
with, the Senate or the people of the arbs Roma; rather they were loyal to
the emperor who paid them and whose benevolent rule had brought
great advantage to their homelands. Rome was a city they were pledged
to defend, but which they would mostly never visit. Increasingly they
began to identify their interests with those of the provinces in which they
were stationed. Only the praetorian and urban cohorts continued to be
recruited principally in Italy, so providing an outlet for the military
aspirations of young men for whom the legions with their long service in
distant provinces held little appeal. The emperor, if he was wise, took
pains to maintain a meaningful bond with the army, by donatives and
special coin issues honouring the troops; Nero’s lack of real interest in
military affairs was a significant factor in his downfall. In the spring of
A.D. 69 the invading army of Vitellius appeared to the citizens of
northern Italy to consist of barbarous foreigners.®3 At the Second Battle
of Cremona, a crucial turning-point came at daybreak on 25 October
when soldiers of legion III Gallica (which had been based in Syria since
Actium a hundred years before) turned to salute the rising sun in oriental
fashion, a gesture which wrongly suggested to the weary Vitellians that
Flavian reinforcements had reached the battlefield. By a.p. 69 the ranks
of III Gallica, like other legions long stationed in the East, contained a
very high proportion of men born in the eastern provinces. The
spectacle of legions swearing loyalty to a Gallic empire, and a veteran
colony (Cologne, founded a.p. 50) making an easy transition to the party
of Civilis, becomes a little more comprehensible, when localized recruit-
ment over several generations is considered.®5 In the summer of 69 a
rumour circulating in Syria, that Vitellius proposed to reward his Rhine
legions by transferring them en bloc to Syria and, in turn, sending the
Syrian garrisons to the cold northern frontiers, was guaranteed to
galvanize the eastern legions to fight on Vespasian’s behalf.86

A blurring of the traditional distinctions between branches of the
army can be observed. Physical and mental attributes would soon
become more important in determining whether a man became a

83 Tac. Hist. 1.21. ® Tac. Hist. 11.24. Cf. Joseph. BJ tv.38, with v1.54, 81.
85 Tac. Hist. w.s4ff, 63. % Tac. Hist. 11.80.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

396 Il. THE ARMY AND THE NAVY

legionary or an auxiliary than his cultural or ethnic antecedents. In the
crisis of A.D. 68-9 the manpower of the major fleets was utilized to form
two new legions, I and II Adiutrix (‘Supportive’), which became a
permanent part of the imperial army. Galba formed a new legion in
Spain, at the time of his bid for power. Many legions were given fresh
postings after the civil war of A.D. 69-70, with those legionary bases
nearest Italy in the secure hands of Flavian legions.

Until a.p. 69~70 many auxiliary regiments had retained close contacts
with their tribe or area of origin, sometimes being stationed at no great
distance. It was only after the events of A.D. 69-70, when several Gallic
and Rhineland units deserted en masse to Civilis, and ties to Rome were
found to be more fragile than imagined, that local links were for a time
decisively broken. Many regiments were posted to far-off provinces, and
their ethnic homogeneity was destroyed. The practice of employing
tribal nobility to command their own tribesmen was discontinued. Yet
as the decades passed, the auxiliaries like the legions began to draw their
manpower increasingly from the province in which they were stationed,
so developing new loyalties. Now if not earlier a fairly standard uniform
was evolved: mail shirt or scale-armour, sword and throwing spears for
the infantry, long slashing sword and heavier spears for the cavalry; yet
some regiments retained their traditional equipment, among them the
oriental archer-cohorts with their long flowing robes, conical helmets
and curving bows. In the aftermath of the civil war, larger-sized cohortes
and alae, up to 1,000 men strong (entitled milliariae) were formed,
perhaps on a model already serving in the East. The gradual integration
of auxiliary formations into the armed forces of the empire is marked too
by the beginnings of adoption of Roman nomenclature and the more
widespread use of tombstones, which commemorated the deceased
auxiliary in Roman fashion, with a suitable Latin text.

The Roman army of the later first century a.p. could still look on
occasion to forward movement (for example in Britain and Germany),
but for the most part it was settling to a static role of frontier defence.
The era of rapid advance and easy victories was over.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 12

THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

H. GALSTERER

The following chapter is concerned with the application of law, not with
law and justice itself. We shall have to deal with the different courts and
officers of law, with judges and procedure, with actions and punishment;
the development of law from the late Republic to early Empire, its pre-
classical shape and the birth of Roman legal science are described in
chapter 21 of this volume.!

The limits of time given for this volume are irrelevant insofar as law
and administration of justice are concerned. Caesar was killed before he
could start on any reform programme he may have planned,? and the
civil wars which began after his death postponed any serious reform
until peace was restored by the new princeps. The end of the period dealt
with in this volume is even less of a rupture in the field of justice. So it is
best to begin with the situation as it had developed in the wake of Sulla’s
reforms, treat rather briefly some reforms under Augustus and his
successors, and end with the state of affairs in the second half of the first
century A.D.

There will be many ‘probablys’ and similar expressions in the
following pages, too many perhaps in view of the fact that the period
between Cicero and Tacitus is one of the best known in ancient history.
But it is a lopsided picture we get, overstressing Rome and the upper
classes. Legal literature on the other side is transmitted to us mostly in
the pruned state passed down by Justinian’s lawyers, who eliminated or
altered many subjects no longer valid in the sixth century. This concerns
municipal jurisdiction especially. But other fields too are less well known
than one would like to think.

' The best introduction ‘to get a feeling’ of how Roman law worked in practice, is probably still
to read over large parts of the Digest, the collection of legal literature made by Justinian, of which
there isa good new English translation. Of modern works Crook 1967 (F 21) esp. ch. 3, and Garnsey
1970 (F 35) are outstanding in their endeavour to combine legal and social history, and are eminently
readable too. The same may be said of chs. 13 and 14 of CAH 1x?, by D. Cloud and J. Crook.

2 Suet. Inl. 44.2; Isid. Esyar. 5.1.5 and Polay 1965 (D 274).

397

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

398 12. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

It is best to start with the city of Rome, as the administration of justice
there is best known, and with civil jurisdiction. In the final years of the
Republic the main law officers of the popal/us Romanus were still the two
senior praetors, the praetor urbanus responsible — in principle — for
jurisdiction among Roman citizens, and the praetor peregrinus for jurisdic-
tion among foreigners and between foreigners and Roman citizens. The
six other praetors were, from the time of Sulla, presidents of the different
courts of criminal law.

The consuls, whose imperium contained jurisdictional rights as well as
that of the praetors, usually did not meddle in the administration of
justice, even if they could quash acts of the praetors.4 More important
was the jurisdiction of the aediles: as superintendants of the urban
markets, and thus responsible for standards of trade and quality, they
helped to shape Roman commercial law to a considerable degree.

The procedure at the praetors’ and the aediles’ court was what is called
the formulary system, at least for most cases (cf. Crook CAH 1x2, ch. 14).
Roman jurisdiction was from the beginning bipartite — the praetor (or
aedile) examining the case in the presence of both parties, as to whether it
was admissible according to the law, and then transferring the factual
decision to a private judge.

Now the praetor could, and progressively did, accept cases not
foreseen by the written laws or slightly different from the situation
presupposed in these laws. If he did so, the case no longer depended
upon civil law (é#s cévi/e) in strict interpretation, but upon the émperium of
the magistrate. He drew up the formula, a kind of scenario for the case to
be decided by the judge. In its simplest form the formula ran as follows:

Let Titius be sudex. If it appears that N.N. ought to pay 10,000 sesterces to A.A.,
let the index condemn N.N. to pay 10,000 sesterces to A.A. If it does not so
appear, let the sadex absolve him.5

Formulae which successfully met new economic or social needs were
taken over by successive praetors, who gave notice in their proclamation
of intentions (edictum), published at the beginning of their term, that they
would grant this or that formula.

A civil suit began én iure, in the presence of one of the two praetors.

3 ‘City of Rome’ being defined since Sulla at the latest by ‘in urbe Roma propiusve mille passus’,
as e.g. in the /ex Cornelia de sicariis (Mosaicorum et Romanorum Legum Collatio 1.3.1).

4 Val. Max. vit.7.6 on a case of 77 B.c.

5 _N.N., standing for Numerius Negidius, the man who denies, and A.A., i.e. Aulus Agerius, the
plaintiff, are stock blanks, as well as ‘Titius’ for the judge. For introductions to the formulary system
cf. Jolowicz and Nicholas 1972 (F 660) 199-232 and Kunkel 1973 (F 667) 91—8; also below, ch. 21,

PP- 959-60.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 399

The plaintiff and the defendant, or their representatives, had to be
present. Normally they had made an appointment, a vadimonium, with
him: ‘for 3 December next at Rome in the Forum of Augustus before the
tribunal of the urban praetor at the second hour’, as it is stated in one of
the new documents from Murecine near Pompeii. A money penalty in
the vadimonium was meant to make both parties appear, and if your
adversary neither gave sureties nor appeared on the stated day, the
praetor could take him for indefensus and eventually grant you entry into
his property. How far this system worked against recalcitrant defendants
or between parties of very different social standing is uncertain.

If both were present, the praetor in discussion with the parties and
their counsel and with the help of éuris periti he had upon his consilium
shaped the formula according to the needs of the case ~ or he might refuse
to accept the case, if he thought the claim not justiciable. The formula
would rarely be so simple as stated above. There might be clauses,
replications and many other specifications in it. An example of a formula
to recover possession of property, the so-called actio Publiciana, runs like
this: ‘Let Titius be éadex. If A.A. has purchased that slave Stichus in good
faith, on whom there is suit, and he has been transferred to him, and he
has possessed him for a year, then if this slave ought to be his by the sus
Quiritium, and this slave is not N.N.’s by the és Ouiritium, or if N.N. did
not sell and transfer that slave on whom there is suit to A.A., and if in this
matter no duress has been involved, iudex, if that slave at your award be
not returned to A.A., do you condemn N.N. to A.A. of so much of his
property as that slave may be worth; if it does not appear, dismiss.”

There was ample opportunity given to the parties to state their points,
and there was probably much discussion in this stage already, when
questions of law were deliberated, but in the end it was the praetor who
decided — he was never a simple referee between parties’ claims.

With the naming of the index and the giving of the formula the
transaction before the praetor, the part in iure, ended and the hearing
before the judge, apud indicem, might begin. For a long time all judges
were taken from among the senators, the a/bum indicum being identical
with the album senatorum. C. Gracchus first took the judges for his
extortion court from among the knights. There is no need to recall the
battles fought over the nomination of judges, mostly in the quaestio
repetundarum (extortion court); they ended for good with the com-
promise reached by the Lex Aurelia of 7o B.c. From then on the panel
from which judges were taken was composed of socially different
decuriae: the first one composed of senators, the second from knights and
the third one from a somewhat mysterious category, the so-called ¢ribuni

6 TabPomp XIV. The translation is by Crook 1967 (F 21) 75.
7 Schiller 1978 (F 689) 439f with commentary.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

400 12. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

aerarii.8 These fribuni were removed by Caesar and reinstituted by
Antony. Augustus created a fourth decuria of judges ex inferiore cens? and
Caligula a fifth one, which ranked as third because composed of eguites.
These decuriae had in the early Empire a thousand or more members
each,!° Roman citizens from Rome, Italy and (probably from the time of
Caligula) from the provinces, between thirty (twenty-five under Au-
gustus) and sixty years old. One of the decuriae was granted leave each
year, the members of the other four divisions had to serve at Rome if they
were not enjoying a vacatio as imperial or municipal magistrates, because
of military duty, or for other excusationes. That even important officials
like the curators of streets, curators of aqueducts, and prefects of the
corn supply were delegated three months each year to serve as judges
shows the importance of this organization."

The album indicum supplied judges to the criminal courts and to the
centumviral court, but most of them worked as single judges (index unus),
or in boards of summary judges (recuperatores) in civil cases. The system
whereby judges were allotted to cases was rather complicated and need
not be discussed here in detail;!2 but it may easily be imagined that a
procedure working well when all — parties, judges and magistrates —
were living in or near Rome, rapidly got into difficulties when parties
and judges were summoned to Rome from the whole empire, from the
shores of the Black Sea to those of the Atlantic.

The parties could in principle agree upon any fit person to act as
judge,!3 but most cases seem to have gone to these indices ex V decuriis, so
that quite naturally the judicature became somewhat oriented to the
upper class. Suetonius, Aulus Gellius and Pliny the Younger are only
some of the known judges, and the latter wrote toa friend that he acted as
a judge almost more often than as counsel.!4

It was up to the judge to find out the facts in the law suit, to find out
whether Numerius Negidius really owed the 10,000 sesterces to Aulus
Agerius or what the circumstances were in the sale, if there was any, of
the slave Stichus. As an additional difficulty the judge in most lawsuits
had not only to condemn or acquit, but also to assess the value of
something to be given or to be done, and (to complicate things still
further) there were no acknowledged rules of relevance to restrain the

8 As Augustus decreed a minimal census of 200,000 sesterces for members of his new, the fourth
decuria, and fribuni aerarii were evidently located between them and the knights, a census of 300,000
sesterces does not seem improbable; but cf. D. Cloud, CAH 1x? 509 for arguments that tribuni aerarii
had a census qualification of 400,000 sesterces like equites. 9 Suet. Aug. 52.3.

10 Pliny, HN 33.30. 11 Senatusconsulta de aquaeductibus (FIRA 12 276-7) cap. 100.

'2 Behrens 1970 (D 245) with Galsterer 1973 (D 255). Readers should be warned however that
Behrens’ interpretation is not accepted by all, cf. W. Eder, Gnomon 46 (1974) 583-9.

'3 Excluded were slaves, women, the mentally ill and those persons who had been convicted of

certain delicts, cf. Kaser 1966 (F 661) 140, and below, n. 20.
4 Geil..NA xiv.2; Pliny, Ep. 1.20.12, v1.2.7.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 401

parties and their counsel from burying the evidence as much as possible
under heaps of irrelevant statements — some of Cicero’s speeches (e.g. the
pro Balbo) are very good examples of this technique. The judge, on the
other hand, was in a strong position because he was not restricted by too
many rules, and if he really didn’t find his way out, he could as a last
resort declare that he did not understand the case, sibi non liquere, and
decline judgment. Aulus Gellius did just that in the second century
when, in his very first case as a judge, he was presented with a man of
splendid reputation (‘vir bonus notaeque et expertae fidei’) suing a rather
disreputable character (“homo non bonae rei vitaque turpi et sordida’)
for a debt without presenting a scrap of evidence. Gellius gave up the
case in the end, but only because he thought himself too young and of
too little social standing to decide, as he evidently wanted to do, in
favour of the ‘good’ man.!5 Incidentally, ‘good’ and ‘bad?’ in this case are
coupled with ‘rich’ and ‘in straitened circumstances’, a correlation which
upper-class judges might easily take for normal.

After judgment, the duty of the index was at an end, unless the plaintiff
had other suits running which he was entitled to present to the same
judge immediately afterwards. It was now up to the winner either, if he
had been the accused, to sue his adversary de calumnia, or, if he had been
plaintiff, to get the defendant to do the thing the lawsuit was about. As
there were nothing like bailiffs, court police or other enforcement
officials, he had to bring another action against a recalcitrant defendant,
this time the actio indicati. At first sight it seems rather strange that the
praetor did not grant immediately an executory title to the winning side,
and there has been some speculation whether this second lawsuit served
as a kind of procedure of appeal.!6 More probably the second suit was
introduced because with this title in hand the plaintiff now could wield
the whole force of the law, up to selling his adversary’s property.

Ill

So far civil jurisdiction in the city of Rome. Criminal justice had not
much altered since the days of Sulla, at least before Augustus.!7 The main
organs of this justice were the courts of law erected by statute and
dealing each with specific crimes, with extortion (repetundae), embezzle-
ment (peculatus), improper canvassing (ambitus) and so on. There were
also courts for less political crimes, as for instance against murderers and
poisoners (de sicariis et veneficis), but on the whole it is political
misdemeanour which was tried in these standing jury-courts (quaestiones

'S Gell. NA xiv.z.2-11. '6 Cf. the discussion in Kaser 1966 (F 661) 298-9.

"? The iudicium domesticum, the justice of the paterfamilias, probably still was active and took over a
number of cases which might otherwise have gone to the courts (cf. Cloud, CAH tx? 499-500).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

4O2 12. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

perpetuae). Judges were taken from the album iudicum; probably there was
a panel of names for each court from which the jury was taken by lot and
by alternate elimination of names.'8 The actual number of judges was
often not very large, so that the allegations of venality throughout the
history of the courts are probably not too farfetched. Presidents of the
courts were ~ from Sulla on — praetors and other, junior magistrates.

Procedure in the guaestiones was by nominis delatio, accusation before the
president of the relevant jury by a citizen (normally) who was either
concerned himself in the case or was prompted by the reward —
informers and accusers, the notorious de/atores and indices, were as
ineradicable a defect in this system of ‘popular accusation’, as were the
sycophants in Athens.!9 If there was more than one prospective accuser
(and there might be rumour of collusion by one of them with the
accused, praevaricatio), there was a first hearing of magistrate and jury
(divinatio) to find out who should be the main accuser. This and the
following steps can best be seen from the Verrines, Cicero’s speeches in
the extortion trial of Gaius Verres. After formal accusation and the
constitution of the jury came the presentation of the evidence, of
testimony and witnesses. All this had to be organized by the prosecution
— there was little help from the state here too and no police, even if
witnesses could be subpoenaed to appear at Rome. After the final
speeches of prosecution and defence the jury voted by ballot. If the reus
was absolved, he was free to sue his accuser for libel (cal/umnia). If
condemned, his civic existence was at stake, because condemnation
brought at least loss of fama,29 and in most courts the capital penalty was
the measure provided for in the law, even if culprits usually were not
hindered if they prevented it by going into exile.

Beside this upper-class justice of the quaestiones and — possibly, if it had
survived till now — process before the people, there existed at least from
the second century B.c. a summary jurisdiction of the IIviri capitales,
who normally looked after jails and the executions of confessi. Their office
was the first step in the hierarchy of magistracies; it’s incumbents were
under twenty-five and had no imperium whatsoever, so it was doubted
whether they were entitled to sentence people to death. But as their
clientele was composed probably of ‘thieves and evil slaves’ (‘fures et

18 The procedure is best known from the Gracchan /ex repetundarum; cf. A. Lintott, Judicial
Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic (Cambridge, 1992), 116-22.

'9 During the Republic rewards had been mostly political, ie. promotion in civic status.
Pecuniary awards seem to be first introduced by the Lex Pedia against the murderers of Caesar and
became usual (consisting in a quota of the condemned’s fortune) in the Empire, especially in masestas
trials.

20 Infamia was the consequence of condemnation in some civil and all criminal trials. There exist
several, slightly different lists of infaming actions, in Gai. Inst. 4.182; D 3.2.1; Tab.Heracl. 108-25;
and now in ch. 84 of the Lex Irnitana.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 403

servi nequam’), that is, the scum of the metropolis, this lack of
competence may not have mattered too much. It is not very probable
either that all minor delinquents were given a process before the
quaestio.2\ As the IIIviri had a consilium of experienced counsellors to
compensate for their lack of experience, on the whole one should
probably accept this capital jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction in Italy in the last century B.c. was shaped mainly by the
consequences of the Social War, when all communities up to the
Rubicon became citizen towns. Few will subscribe today to Rudolph’s
theory that the Italian municipalities received their own jurisdiction only
by a law of Caesar instituting municipal jurisdiction.22 Latin colonies and
cities of socii retained their own jurisdiction after 89 B.c., which only had
to be adapted somehow to the Roman system — in the same manner
probably as had been the case with old citizen towns (municipia and
coloniae) before the Social War.

There were still — down to Augustus — praefecti inure dicundo in some
towns, who were delegates of the Roman praetor (#rbanus?) and
responsible for local jurisdiction. But we need not spend much time on
the thorny question about their duties and competences, as by the second
half of the first century B.c. probably all towns in Italy had gained their
own administrative structures and with that their own jurisdiction.
Where praefecti iure dicundo are now mentioned in inscriptions, they are
delegates of municipal magistrates, when the local law officers the [Iviri
or III lviri inure dicundo were away or when this office was given to a
prominent Roman politician or even to the emperor.

Differences in jurisdictional competence between colonies and munici-
pia, which may have existed in the Republic, had disappeared by the
beginning of the Principate; laws dealing with municipal jurisdiction
like the so-called Lex Rubria treat all towns on an equal footing. But
there existed now, and we do not know from what date, upper limits of
jurisdictional competence for municipal law-courts. The Lex Rubria of
41 B.C., adjusting municipal jurisdiction in the former Gallia Cisalpina to
that of Italy after the abolishment of the province, seems to fix this limit
at a value of not more than 15,000 sesterces and for several categories of
cases involving infamia to not more than 10,000 sesterces but limits
probably differed not only in the provinces but also in Italy according to

21 Jones 1972 (D 264) (but cf. the critical reviews of Behrens 1973 (D 246) and Brunt 1974 (D 251));
Crook 1967 (F 21) 69 and Brunt 1964 (p 250) are sceptical about this capital jurisdiction; Cloud in
CAH tx? 501 accepts it as far as slaves, perhaps even working-class citizens were concerned.

2 For the arguments against a general /ex Iulia municipalis cf. Galsterer 1987 (D 92).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

404 12. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

the status and the importance of cities (cf. below, p. 410). As the right or
the obligation to have one’s case tried at Rome (revocatio Romam) became
more and more diffused, especially among the local elites, municipal
jurisdiction even in this way tended to be restricted to petty cases.

In criminal law it seems as if at the beginning of our period municipal
juries existed and still enjoyed far-reaching competence. It is difficult to
avoid the impression from Cicero’s speech for Cluentius that there were
local quaestiones for capital cases like murder and poisoning,?3 and as the
competence of the Sullan guaestio de sicariis was restricted to Rome and
her near surroundings such quaestiones were necessary to deal without too
much delay with local crime.24 Whether their sentences were appealable
at Rome is not known.

Procedure in the Italian towns probably followed Roman practice, i.e.
formulary process with the chief magistrates in the role of the praetors at
Rome. They too had been called praetor from the beginning, so it seems,
because their main duty was in jurisdiction, and when later this title
seemed too grandiloquent for small town magistrates, now they were
simply named IIviri iure dicundo or UlIviri inure dicundo. Judges in the
municipalities were taken from a roll (a/bum) which was mostly identical
with the album decurionum, the list of members of the council. There may
have been local variations however: at Narbo an inscription was set up in
honour of Augustus because he had added plebeian courts to those of the
councillors (indicia plebis decurionibus coniunxit); at Irni too there were
judges of inferior census, but evidently with the same competence as
those taken from among the decuriones.25

Finally jurisdiction in the provinces, originally areas under the super-
vision of magistrates or pro-magistrates with imperium. As they were few
and their provinces generally large, there could be no idea of intense
administration. In civil jurisdiction they were concerned mostly with the
affairs of Roman citizens living in the province and with those of Italian
socii, insofar as those had not the right of revocatio Romam, to have their
case heard at Rome.

The governor used formulary jurisdiction as did the praetor at Rome.
The recently published inscription of Contrebia shows the governor of
Hither Spain giving in 87 B.c. a formula to two communities of the Ebro
valley litigating about water rights; it is very complex and shows

23 Cf.Cic. Clu. 176 for capital proceedings initiated by municipal magistrates against Cluentius.
These are probably the ixdicia publica mentioned in Tab.Heracl. 119 (FIRA 1? p. 149).

24 Mosaicorum et Romanorum Legum Collatio 1.3.1, cf. Cloud in CAH tx? 522 n. 157 for the lex Iulia
devi. 25 Narbo: CIL x11 4333 of a.p. 11, pace Dessau ILS 112 ad locum; lex Irnit. 86.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 405

complete mastery of the technique. In the nominatio the Senate of a third
community is named to be judge in the case.26 This lawsuit is between
peregrine communities, but if he had to give judgment to Romans, the
governor gave single judges and recuperatores from a provincial album.
‘On the other hand the governor was in no way forced to use the
formulary process. With peregrine provincials mostly (not always, as we
have just seen), but also with Romans he could, instead of naming a
judge and instructing him in a formula what to do, inquire himself — in the
presence of his consilium — into facts and legal circumstances. This
jurisdiction, based entirely upon his imperium, was called cognitio; it
played a certain role already in the doings of Verres in Sicily, but became
really important, and then dominant, only with the Principate.2’

Jurisdiction in the provinces had one further peculiarity too, in that
the governor did not reside all the time in one city where people had to
go if in need of him but, following a certain calendar, he toured the main
cities of his province where people from the surrounding areas could
come to bring actions before him and to transact other legal business.”8
From the ‘coming together’ of plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, judges
and business people of all sorts this meeting was called conventus, but the
word soon acquired a geographic sense, meaning the circuit. So we
know from the provincial lists given by the Elder Pliny the composition
of the four circuits of Baetica, the seven circuits of Tarraconensis etc.,
and this partition into circuits soon served other purposes too, as was
shown some years ago by new evidence for Asia Minor.29

The introduction of one-man rule affected the different branches of the
administration of justice in different ways. The mainstay of civil
jurisdiction remained the two praetors’ courts at Rome. The number of
praetors was augmented by Caesar to between ten and sixteen and
remained the same number under Augustus. Later they oscillated
between twelve and eighteen, with twelve more or less the norm.» Some
of them were presidents of the quaestiones perpetuae, some others had
special competences in civil jurisdiction, like the praetor hastarius who (in
the place of the old Xviri stlitibus indicandis) now became responsible for
the centumviral court, or the two (from Titus one) praefores fideicommis-

% Richardson 1983 (B 271) and Birks, Rodger and Richardson 1984 (D 247).

7 Cf. Cic. Verr. 11.2.70ff and Augustus’ fourth edict for Cyrene (FIRA 1? 409).

2% Sometimes the governor would call together (evecare) the inhabitants of more than one
conventus, as did Cicero in his province of Cilicia (Aft. v.21.9, v1.2.4).

29 Habicht published an inscription from Ephesus giving a register of towns in Asia Minor by
diviceseis|conventus (JRS 65 (1975) 64-91); Burton deals with the assize organization in a more general
way (UJRS 65 (1975) 92-106). % Dio Lvt.25.4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

406 12. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

sarii whom Claudius set over the fidei commissa (informal requests from
the testator to heirs) newly actionable since Augustus. But the increasing
number of praetors was due not so much to the requirements of
jurisdiction as to political exigencies and the need for ex-praetors to fill
administrative posts. The importance of the praetors diminished as
imperial jurisdiction grew; development of law became impossible for
the praetor because the edictum, which was taken over almost unaltered
from one praetor to the next for a long time, was now almost
standardized;3! and the famous jurists of the Severi tended to be not
praetors, but praefecti praetorio on the emperor’s staff. Jurisdiction of the
aediles was taken over by various officials in the emperor’s service, the
lion’s share going to the governor of Rome (praefectus arbi), the chief of
the watch (praefectus vigilum) and the prefect of the corn supply (praefectus
annonae). These imperial officers might on any occasion be members of
the consilium of the princeps too, which by and by became the most
important body for the development of law.%2

But the republican courts were still functioning and were reorganized
by Augustus in a couple of very detailed laws, the /eges Iuliae indiciorum
privatorum et publicorum of 17 B.C. From what we can see the whole field of
procedure and organization was touched: abolition of /egis actiones, times
of hearing and recess, obligations of judges, adjournments and so on.
The Jeges Iuliae together with senatusconsulta giving specifications and
updatings remained fundamental for several centuries.

The old jurisdiction by praetor and private judges was hemmed in
now in two ways. One we will deal with later, the now regular use of the
juridical competences of the consuls, acting with the Senate as their jury
and functioning mostly as a peers’ court for delinquent senators. More
important and ever more increasing was the role of the emperor. Using
the fribunicia potestas which gave the emperor ius auxilii against judg-
ments based on imperium — this ius auxilii was reshaped in 30 B.C. as a
prerogative to appellatum indicare — and the permanent consular and
proconsular imperium which allowed him cognitio in his own right, and his
predominant auctoritas, the emperor very soon became the most import-
ant institution in law: even if not all cases went to his court, the idea thata
citizen might appeal to him as a last resort extended, till it reached even
the last and least of the provincials.

Augustus, as we are told, was a most diligent judge who sat until the
end of the day, very lenient according to Suetonius or, if we believe
Cassius Dio, most severe.33 Another emperor of outstanding zeal in
jurisdiction was Claudius, but of him too people doubted whether he did

3» For the arguments about the codification of the edictum perpetuum under Hadrian cf. Guarino
1980 (D 261). 32 Cf. Crook 1955 (D 10). 33 Suet. Aug. 33; Dio Lv.7.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 407

not do so only to have an outlet for his natural cruelty.>4 Of one of his
reforms in jurisdiction we have first-rate evidence, a papyrus giving
parts of what is probably a speech by Claudius in the Senate on the
minimum age of iudices ex albo and on the repression of de/atores.35 ‘Let us
stop the lawless tyranny of the accusers’ at least sounds good, even if the
consequences were not nearly so impressive.

VII

The administration of justice continued to develop with the Principate.
In civil jurisdiction at Rome the praetor urbanus and the praetor peregrinus
worked as in the Republic, but of the old separation of their fields of
competences, provinciae, next to nothing is left. These two praetors still
made use of the formulae, as the praetor hastarius, the new president of the
iudicium centumvirale, used the still older /egis actio sacramento. The new
‘special’ praetors appearing since Augustus all made use of cognitio, i.e.
they were not bound by the limitations in procedure and timing
characteristic of the old ordo iudiciorum. Some quasi-judicial functions in
civil law were given to the consuls too, probably to make good the loss
of political influence of the former chief magistrates. At the end of
Augustus’ reign Ovid already regards jurisdiction as one of the main
occupations of consuls, and Suetonius distinguishes carefully between
Claudius’ jurisdiction as consul and as a privatus.* But most of the job fell
to the emperor himself. He took up some cases in the first instance, cases
probably where decisions based on cognitio would serve as exempla and
where the ordinary law did not suffice. Later on, the emperors delegated
part of their jurisdictional tasks to officials in their service, so that the
praefectus urbi, the praefectus annonae, the praefectus vigilum and occasionally
even the praefectus praetorio might wield civil jurisdiction in the first
instance, based of course on the ‘mperium of the emperor. It seems rather
doubtful if there were any precise delimitations of their prerogatives, so
that — as in criminal justice — plaintiffs might have the possibility of
choice among different courts.

The emperor’s main activity lay of course in the field of appeals.
Regular appeal from the sentences of ordinary judges or courts had not
existed in the Republic: provocatio had always been a political measure
directed against acts of imperium, and it was apparently with judgments
in cognitio cases, that is, based on imperium, that appeals started under
Augustus; it may have seemed logical to allow appeal from lower to

4 Sen. Apocol. 12.2, cf. Garzetti 1974 (A 35) 137f, Goof.

35 The causes for retaining the attribution to Claudius, as against Millar 1977 (A 59) 350 n. 59, in
Talbert 1984 (D 77) 499f. 3% Ov. Pont. 1v.5.17, 1V-9.43; Suet. Claud. 14.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

408 12. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

higher and from delegated to original imperium. From the beginning it
was more than provocatio. In 30 B.c., after the capture of Alexandria,
Octavian was given — together with the tribunician ius ausilii — the right
to €xxAnrov dixalecv i.e. appellatum indicare, and the calculus Minervae in all
courts, wherewith votes of the jury might be rescinded.>” Later on, when
in possession of the smperium consulare, he received appeals from praetors
and proconsuls in virtue of his imperium maius. Already in the first years
of the Principate the number of appeals had grown to such dimensions
that Augustus had to delegate appeals, those of arbani litigatores to the
praetor urbanus and those coming from the provinces to selected consu-
lares.38 Nero enacted thatall appeals from Italy and the public provinces
should go to the Senate — as the consuls’ consi/ium — and that the same
caution-money should be paid for appeals to the Senate as to the
emperor.>? This policy failed blatantly: litigants preferred to go to the
emperor’s court, whether they came from Italy, from public or from
imperial provinces.

Vill

The co-existence of different courts became much more problematic in
the field of criminal justice. When Cn. Piso in a.p. 20 was accused of
(among other crimes) poisoning Germanicus, the de/ator brought his
accusation before the consuls, but the friends of Germanicus claimed
that the emperor himself should inquire into the case. This even Piso
accepted, ‘studia populi et patrum metuens’.* So, along with the Senate
and the emperor, the Roman people, i.e. the appropriate quaestio de sicariis
et veneficis, was competent in this case. The decision which court to
choose lay with the accusers who — at least in maiestas cases — for evident
reasons will have preferred to go to the emperor’s court.

As the guaestiones dealt mostly with political crimes connected with
the upper strata of society, they were the first to go. Augustus and
the following principes, in virtue of tribunicia potestas and of consulare
imperium, could and did exercise criminal jurisdiction, and so did the
consuls with the Senate.*! This body was not a peers’ court proper but
since the first century the senators felt that they should be tried by no one

37 Dio x1.19.7 and Lintott 1972 (D 271) 263-7. 38 Suet. Aug. 33.3.

39 Tac. Aan. xitt.4; Suet. Ner. 17. Though slightly different, Suetonius means probably the same
proclamation of Nero as Tacitus.

| Jones 1960 (A 47) gof suggested that it was the /ex Iulia de indiciis privatis which reintroduced the
criminal jurisdiction of the consuls. In view of the decidedly political implications of many such
cases it is not very probable that such senatorial jurisdiction was permitted by Augustus before the
final settlement of power in Rome. The trials of 23 B.c. still took place apud indices and before the

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 409

below them in social standing, at least in cases of matestas and repetundae.*?
Emperors agreed with that in theory but most of them were more
hesitant to apply this principle to cases of treason in the face of a
potentially hostile Senate. Emperor and Senate divided between them
now most of the trials which in former times had gone to the jury-courts.
So almost all the quaestiones seem simply to have passed away by the end
of the first century a.p., with the one possible exception of the Augustan
quaestio de adulterits, which seems to have been in existence till the third
century a.p.43

As courts multiplied, so did fines and penalties. In the Republic, with
the exception of some rather archaic punishments, like burying alive the
Vestal Virgin who was found guilty of unchastity, or the drowning of
parricides in a sack, together with snakes and other animals, there were
either pecuniary fines or capital punishment, execution or voluntary
exile, which involved deminutio capitis too, loss of citizenship. In the
quaestiones system the appropriate penalty was laid down in the law
instituting the quaestio.4 Not so in the jurisdiction based on cagnitio,
either the emperor’s or the Senate’s. Even crimes for which there was a
statutory penalty if brought before the jury-court, might in cognitio be
punished in a quite different manner. In cognitio there also developed the
system of penalties one tends to connect with imperial jurisdiction after
reading Tacitus: the different ways of disposing of real or suspected
opponents by deportatio or relegatio, commitment to forced labour or to
gladiatorial troops, ‘public-fair execution’ (Volksfesthinrichtung). Here
belonged also the increasing differentiation between Aonestiores and
humiliores in criminal law.*5 Prison, by the way, was not a penalty, nor
was torture: both were used only in the period before judgment, as
custody for defendants or to enforce confessions.

The emperor besides giving judgement in the first instance and
functioning as judge of appeal from all his delegates (and more and more
Roman officials came to be in public and in their own opinion the
emperor’s delegates!) became the heir of the populus Romanus too, in that
he now was the addressee of provocatio, which for all practical purposes
became identical now with appeal.“ ‘Provoco ad Caesarem’ was the

praetor. It is only in the later years of Augustus, that we hear of the Senate acting as a court, as a
possibility from Ovid in a.p. 8 and, with concrete cases, in A.D. 12 and 13, cf. Talbert 1984 (D 77)
460-87. Already in 4 8.c. Augustus had, in the fifth edict of Cyrene, given the Senate jurisdictional
competences in less important, i.e. non-capital, cases of repetundae, cf. FIR.A 12 410-14.

42 Cf. Talbert 1984 (D 77) 470f.

43 Paul in his commentary on the /ex Iulia de adulteriis still cited the /ibellus (indictment) to be
presented to the praetor who was president of this quaestio (Dig. 48.2.3 pr.).

44 The vounger Pliny’s opinion ‘licere senatui, sicut licet, et mitigare leges et intendere’ (1v.9.17)
was still at the beginning of the second century opposed by other senators, cf. also 1.11. 2ff and B.
Levick, Hist. 28 (1979) 358-79. 45 Cf. P. Garnsey, Natural Law Forum 13 (1968) 141-62.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

410 12. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

password now of the Roman citizen, whose immunity from torture and
from execution on the spot was even guaranteed by the Augustan law on
vis publica. Kaioapa émixadovpas, ‘I appeal unto Caesar’, said Paul, and
Festus, after discussion with his council, stopped all further proceedings:
“You appealed unto Caesar, you shall go up to Caesar.’47

In Italy jurisdiction in the municipia and coloniae went on as before. As in
political supervision it was consuls and Senate who were responsible for
Italia between the Alps and the Straits of Messina, so jurisdiction in cases
exceeding the value allowed to municipal courts went to the praetors at
Rome. According to the late republican Lex Rubria the limit of value
apparently was 15,000 sesterces in ‘normal’ civil suits and 10,000 in trials
which might bring ¢nfamia, at least in the cities of former Cisalpine Gaul.
There is no distinction between towns according to size, status or
anything else. On the other hand the new Lex Irnitana has shown that in
Spain Latin municipia had different limits of value: 500 sesterces at Irni
and 1,000 at Malaca.*8 This is in the provinces, in Flavian times and with
Latins, but it shows at least that there was differentiation, and so we
probably had better think of a gradation of cities according to import-
ance, political and economic weight and so forth, in Italy too. One of the
new tablets from Pompeii strongly suggests that local jurisdiction there
might deal with cases worth well over 20,000 sesterces.*9 The IIviri of
Milan are called manumittendi potestate in some inscriptions, and the same
may be true of those of Herculaneum, while as a rule emancipation of
slaves was permitted only to holders of ‘mperium.°° The procedure to be
followed in the municipal courts was the formulary process. In the so-
called Florentine fragment of a muncipal law cognitio seems to be
forbidden to colonial magistrates, but we know neither the field wherein
magistrates are not permitted to cognoscere nor whether this was a rule for
all towns or only for some.*!

Criminal justice in Italian towns probably declined even earlier than
civil jurisdiction. It used to be maintained that capital jurisdiction had
never been given to the municipia and coloniae, but if there were municipal

47 Acts 25:12.

48 The relevant chapter is 69, which in the Lex Malacitana gives 1,000 sesterces as the upper level,
in the otherwise identical Lex Irnitana 500 sesterces.

49 Cf. G. Purpura, Tabulae Pompeianae 13 ¢ 34: due documenti relativi al prestitio marittimo, Atti 17.
Congr. Intern. di Papirol. (Napoli, 1984) 1245-66.

© AE 1947, 47, cf. Kaser 1966 (F 661) 129, 134. Manumission at Herculaneum was inferred by V.
Arangio-Ruiz, Studi Epigrafici e Papirologici (Napoli, 1974) 568~70 from one of the tablets of the
Justa-dossier, probably rightly. Maybe it is not by chance that Milan and Herculaneum were
colonies. In the late Republic magistrates of Italian and provincial towns might still have ‘aperturr,

as is shown by Lex Ursonensis 125, 128 and Lex Rubria 20.
51 C, W. Bruns, Foutes Iuis Romani Autiqui? (Tubingen 1909) 158 nr. 33.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 4II

quaestiones they may have had considerable competences, at least against
defendants from lower social strata. This situation may still be the
background to the contract of lease (/ex /ocationis) of a local funeral,
killing and torturing enterprise operating in the first century A.D. in
Puteoli. Its clientele probably was composed not only of slaves but of
free persons as well.52 But in the course of the first two centuries A.D. all
criminal jurisdiction in Italy was taken over by the emperor’s delegates,
the city prefect for the territory up to 100 miles from Rome and the
praetorian prefects for the land farther away; for Ulpian the municipal
magistrates were not even allowed to sentence slaves to death — only
‘moderate punishment is not to be denied to them’.3

In the provinces the jurisdictional duties of the governor became more
and more important as the waging of wars became the exception.* After
27 B.c. the distinction between public and imperial provinces was
relevant for jurisdiction because proconsules had an imperium of their own,
while the /egati Augusti participated in the emperor’s ‘mperium. Therefore
the proconsuls could appoint /egati of their own to help them in
jurisdiction, but the governors of the imperial provinces could not,
having themselves a delegated smperium.>5 So the emperor had himself to
send officials for jurisdiction, éuridici, into provinces where he thought it
appropriate, for example to Hispania Tarraconensis. The prefect of
Egypt did possess an imperium ad similitudinem proconsulis, imperium like
that of a proconsul, but that was given to him by law under Augustus.5¢
On the other hand the emperor, by his smperium proconsulare maius, could
give instructions to proconsuls too, and he issued wandata to them as to
his own delegates, so in reality the difference between public and
imperial provinces was less than might be expected.*”

The governor could, as before, use iwrisdictio giving a formula based on
his edict and naming éudices from a provincial album. The edicta, formulae,
stipulationes etc. published by the governor are made compulsory for
municipal magistrates in the Lex Irnitana. Even in new provinces like
Arabia with little or no Romanization, strictly Roman forms of litigation

532 AE 1971, 88f and Agennius Urbicus (in Corp.Agrim. p. 47 Th.), implying chat all cities had
loca noxiorum poenis destinata. The view given in the text is that of Kunkel, PW 24 (1963) 779-83 as
against F. de Martino, Labeo 21 (1975) 211-14. 53° Dig. 2.1.12.

+ Cf. Garnsey and Saller 1987 (A 34) 34-40.

55 Another question concerns the ius gladii given to some or to all governors, cf. Jones 1960 (A 47)
oe 1.17 for the praefectus Aegypti. The position of ixridicus Hispaniae Citerioris was a creation of
Augustus too.

57 Cf. Burton 1976 (D 89). The inscription from Cos (AE 1974, 629) is relevant too for people
trying to evade municipal jurisdiction.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

412 12. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

were introduced, as has been shown lately by models for an actio tutelae
found in the archive of one Babatha, dating from the first quarter of the
second century A.p.58 On the other hand the governor could try cases by
cognitio and give judgment himself or by a judge delegated by himself
(index pedaneus). {n criminal justice the double procedure holds good too,
at least in the first century. The first edict of Cyrene sets up for capital
cases a mixed panel of judges from Greeks and Roman citizens living in
Cyrene and having a census of more than 7,500 denarii, but it becomes
evident from the fourth edict that the governor could just as well
conduct the inquiry and render decision himself.5° Decisions of procon-
suls wielding their own imperium and those of provincial jury-courts in
theory might be final, without appeal, but in reality provocatio or appellatio
were attempted wherever possible.

Municipal jurisdiction in the provinces was different, depending on
whether a city had Roman or Latin rights or was simply non-Roman,
civitas peregrina, and among the latter there was a small, privileged group,
the civitates liberae et foederatae, which were in theory free from Roman
intervention. But already in the first century a.p. theory and reality were
quite different. In 6 B.c. a case of killing by throwing a filled chamberpot
out of the window was transferred from the jurisdiction of the free city of
Cnidus to that of Augustus, who ordered the proconsul of Asia to
investigate. In the second century differences such as this had largely
disappeared.

According to Velleius Paterculus, the loyal historian of Augustus and
Tiberius, after the end of the civil wars laws, juries and Senate regained
their former authority: ‘restituta vis legibus, iudiciis auctoritas, senatui
maiestas’.61 So it might seem, and senators would be happier and
certainly fared better if they believed in this phraseology. Tacitus knew
otherwise: the emperor slowly began to arrogate to himself the functions
of Senate, magistrates and laws, without meeting opposition. As in
politics, so in che administration of justice the old institutions first
operated next to imperial jurisdiction and then slowly withered away,
first in the provinces, then in Italy and finally in Rome, first in criminal
justice, then in civil jurisdiction. Senators in the capital might, in the

58. This is not the place to discuss the many problems connected with this archive, still not entirely
published, which contains documents in Aramaic, Greek and Latin; cf. Wolff 1980 (p 278) and
Bowersock 1983 (£ 990) 76-9. 5° Cf. the fourth Edict of Cyrene, FIRA 12 qo9.

© FIRA 11 185; this was not, to be sure, a straightforward case, but mixed up with local intrigue,
cf. the commentary of Millar 1977 (a $9) 443. 61 11.89.3.

82 Ann. 1.2.1 ‘insurgere paulatim, munia senatus magistratuum legum in se trahere nullo
adversante’.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 413

period comprised in this volume, still sometimes try to live under the
illusion of the old respublica. But in addition to cognitio extra ordinem, there
now existed regular appeal in private law cases as in criminal justice, and
a supervision which, if not always and everywhere efficient, was at least
decidedly better than anything the Republic had known. In the view of
the large majority of the population, the new trends in the administration
of justice were undoubtedly ‘progress’.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 134

ITALY AND ROME FROM
SULLA TO AUGUSTUS

M. H. CRAWFORD

I. EXTENT OF ROMANIZATION

The enfranchisement of peninsular Italy in and immediately after 90 B.c.,
and of Transpadane Gaul in 49 B.c., was the culmination of a process
which had begun in the fifth century B.c.! Similarly, the Romanization of
Italy and the ‘Italianization’ of Rome, although both proceeded at an
accelerated pace in the generations which followed the Social War, were
phenomena whose roots lay deep in the past. In offering an interpre-
tation of the essential features of the changing relationship between
Rome and Italy from Sulla to Augustus, one must perforce take for
granted much of their earlier history.?

A few words, however, by way of introduction. Within both the
insurgent and the loyalist areas in 91 B.c., there were substantial
variations in the extent of Romanization. Thus, of the Samnites and the
Marsi, who both rebelled, the former still spoke their own language and
used their own alphabet, the latter wrote and spoke Latin. The linguistic
diversity of rebel Italy is indeed perfectly reflected in its bilingual
coinage. The Samnites moreover remained directly acquainted with
Greek cultural models down to the outbreak of war, for the Marsi these
had probably long been mediated through Rome.> Similarly, of the
Etruscans, whose part in the rebellion lay somewhere on a scale between
the minimal and the non-existent, the southern peoples had largely
ceased to speak Etruscan or to function as autonomous centres of artistic
production in the third century B.c., the northern cities remained
Etruscan in their language and in their art.*

A similarly variegated picture emerges if one looks at other areas of
activity. Traditional forms of agriculture survived in some parts of Italy

' [| should like, with the customary disclaimer, to offer my warmest thanks to Dr A.K. Bowman,
Professor P.A. Brunt, Dr T.J. Cornell, Miss A.C. Dionisotti, Professor E. Gabba, the late Professor
A. Gara, Mr Ph. Moreau, Dr J.A. North, for their comments on earlier drafts of this chapter. 1
should also have liked it if my thanks had been able to cross the Styx to Martin Frederiksen, without
whose fertility in ideas and generosity with them this chapter would have been a much poorer thing.

2 I have tried to lay out its essential features in Crawford 1986 (£ 27).

3 See Crawford 1981 (E 26). 4 Torelli 1976 (E 130).

414

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMANIZATION 415

in the second century B.c., against a general background of the spread of
plantations and also of pastoralism oriented towards the market;5 by way
of contrast, the whole of peninsular Italy had come to use the same
coinage and the same system of reckoning within a generation or so after
the end of the Second Punic War.® The coinage which the insurgents
struck in 91-89 B.c. was a coinage of denarii, with one issue of awrei. It is
also worth drawing attention in this context to the Lex Osca Tabulae
Bantinae, an inscription on bronze which conserves part of the charter of
the Lucanian community of Bantia, to be dated just before the Social
War.’ It is in the Oscan language, but the Latin script; its institutions are
largely borrowed from those of the nearby Latin colony of Venusia, but
the text still struggles to create a vocabulary in Oscan to describe them.

Romanized and non-Romanized, insurgent and loyalist, all had a
common citizenship from (let us say) 86 B.c. Attempts had been made in
the immediate aftermath of the Social War to limit the distribution of the
new citizens either to a small minority of the existing Roman tribes or to
a small number of specia'ly created additional tribes; and Sulla had tried
to deprive some Italian communities of full Roman citizenship. But once
these manoeuvres had failed, the whole of Italy south of the Po, perhaps
with the exception of some parts of Liguria, formed in theory a single
political unit centred on Rome. Even if they remained subject to the
jurisdiction of the governor of Gallia Cisalpina, the citizens of the former
Latin colony of Placentia were fully entitled to vote in elections at Rome.
Entitlement and practice, however, need not coincide and it would be
rash to suppose that the orientation of men’s political consciousness
necessarily changed very much or very fast. One small piece of evidence
suggests that it did begin to change. Unknown on inscriptions outside
Roman territory and of extreme rarity outside Rome itself before the
Social War, consular dating formulae begin to turn up in all parts of Italy
with some regularity (see Appendix I, p. 979).

Let us consider first, then, the problem of political structures. Censors
were elected for 86 B.c., but they evidently did no more than nibble at the
problem of compiling a list of all those who were now Roman citizens.
No further census was held for sixteen years; for Sulla certainly took
steps to ensure that the Republic could function without censors,
whether or not he intended or directed that the census should disappear
and whether or not he hoped or wished that the vast mass of new citizens
should not be registered. Even the censors of 70 B.c., in the context of
an abandonment of some of the more conspicuously objectionable
features of the Sullan settlement, failed to register more than a propor-

5 Lepore 1981 (E 75). 6 See Crawford 1985 (B 320).
7 Roman Statutes 1995 (F 684) no. 13. 8 Wiseman 1969 (E 137).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Map 3. Italy.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMANIZATION 417

tion of those whom they could in theory have registered. No further
census was completed before that of Augustus in 28 B.c. But this was not
the only problem. The sheer size and dispersion of the citizen body now
made plain what had long been the case, namely that no assembly at
Rome could be regarded as reflecting the views of the citizen body as a
whole; no longer could even the Roman system of group voting be
regarded as achieving this end, despite the fact that if a few people from
Arpinum travelled to Rome to vote, they could in some sense be seen as
the representatives of their section of the fribus Cornelia. And in fact
within a very few years of the failed census of 70-69 B.c. there emerged a
new way in which the aristocracies, at least, of the towns of Italy could
make their views known — decrees passed by their councils and
transmitted to the Senate at Rome, as for instance in the course of the

Catilinarian crisis of 63 B.c., evoked by Cicero in his defence of Flaccus in
59 B.C.:

Let the /audationes of great municipia and colonies serve to defend him, let the
lavish and accurate /axdati. of the Senate and people of Rome also serve. To
think of that night which almost consigned this city to everlasting darkness .. .°

Of course, in the age of Cicero, the domi nobiles who passed these decrees
also attempted at the same time, to a greater extent than ever before, to
make their way in politics or society at Rome, emulating the office-
holders of the imperial Republic or, like Catullus, sleeping with their
wives, sisters and daughters.!° Now, as earlier, contact of whatever kind
between Rome and Italy was toa large extent mediated through personal
relationships between members of the Roman and Italian aristocracies
and was never insulated from the political life of either. The extension of
Roman citizenship and any accompanying acculturation always
involved a very delicate balance between the transformation and the
conservation of existing political and economic structures.!!

A sense of the tensions emerges in the passage in which Velleius
Paterculus singles out for praise the help given to Rome in the Social
War by his ancestor Minatius Magius of Aeclanum, who was himself the
descendant of a man of Capua loyal to Rome in the Second Punic War;
Velleius was well aware that the Italian cause was just, but that loyalty to

9 Cic. Flac. 101-2; compare Sest. 9-11; Gabba 1986 (E 49).

10 Syme 1938 (p 68); Syme 1939 (A 93) 90-4; Wiseman 1971 (D 81), documents at length and forall
periods down to Augustus the incorporation of Italians in the Roman governing class; see also
Nicolet 1966 (D 52) I. 387-422; Cébeillac Gervasoni 1978 (E 14); the papers in Epigrafia e ordine
senatorio 1982 (D 42); David 1983 (E 32); D’Arms 1984 (E 31); for the jurists, see Frier 1985 (F 652)
253—4; for culcural links, see Wiseman 1983 (E 138); Dumont 1983 (E 36); Wiseman 1985 (E 139);
Rawson 19835 (A 79).

1 See the fine remarks of Gabba 1984 (E 48) 214-17; for two case studies see Castrén 1983 (E 13);
Sensi 1983 (£ 120).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

418 134. ITALY AND ROME

Rome was an overriding obligation, that Rome granted after the
outbreak of war what she had denied in time of peace (11.16.1—2):

The most important leaders of the Italici, however, were Popaedius Silo, Herius
Asinius, Insteius Cato, C. Pontidius, Pontius Telesinus, Marius Egnatius,
Papius Mutilus. Nor will I from modesty subtract a particle of glory from my
own family, while continuing to tell the truth; for tribute must be paid to the
memory of Minatius Magius of Aeclanum, my atavus, the grandson of Decius
Magius, a leading Capuan and a most outstanding and loyal man; his loyalty to
Rome in this war was such that with a legion which he had raised among the
Hirpini he captured Herculaneum along with T. Didius, and Pompeii along
with L. Sulla, and seized Compsa ...

The poignancy of the juxtaposition, Minatius Magius beside the insur-
gent leaders, speaks for itself. We should also pause for a moment to
stand before the Arringatore, a splendid bronze statue of an orator in full
flood, now in the Museo Archaeologico di Firenze; belonging to the
early Julio-Claudian period, he represents perfectly these men who stood
between their two worlds, with the foga and calcei of a magistrate of
Perugia, the analus and angustus clavus of a Roman eques.'?

But it is more than doubtful whether such men pursued their careers in
the context of any kind of systematic policy in favour of administrative
centralization or social conformity. It is true that there are a few coin-
types which seem to advertise the popularis themes of /ibertas or the union
of Italy and Rome;!3 but the ideology of a modern nation state seems to
be wholly absent from the Roman world and perhaps too much emphasis
has been put on the pressures making for the decline of local patriotism
in the Italy of the late Republic.!* We need to remember that, even within
the Roman elite, the age of Cicero was a period of exuberant diversity
and experimentation with new social and cultural models.!5 And the
enfranchisement of Italy actually removed one powerful reason for the
privileging of Roman models, namely the need to emphasize the
difference in status between, say, a Latin colony with all its rights and
privileges, such as Aesernia, and a neighbouring Samnite village. On the
other hand, another factor may have been relevant. Just as in the third
century B.c. the final stages of the extension of Roman control over Italy
coincided with and were influenced by the beginning of Roman
expansion overseas, so the period with which we are concerned

12 Demougin 1988 (D 37) 781; M. Cristofani 1986-7 (F 338).

13 Crawford 1974 (B 319) I nos. 391 (C. Egnatius Cn.f. Cn.n. Maxsumus), 392 (L. Farsuleius
Mensor), 403 (Kalenus, Cordus).

4 E.g., Galsterer 1976 (E 52) 13—14; for the ideology of a modern nation state, see e.g., E. Weber,
Peasants into Frenchmen. The Modernization of Rural France, 1870-1914 (London, 1979); for the absence

of an Italian consciousness in the early Empire, see Gabba 1978 (E 45).
15 Beard and Crawford 1985 (a 3) ch. 2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMANIZATION 419

witnessed the beginning of large-scale grants of citizenship in the
provinces, massive colonization overseas and the emergence of Rome
not simply as a world power, but also as a world state. It is in this context
significant that the possibility of holding Roman citizenship along with
that of a foreign state emerges for the first time in the age of Caesar.16
Contrasts between Italian communities formerly of different statuses will
perhaps have seemed secondary to the need to create and conserve a
sense of Italian identity against the background of a rapidly changing
outside world. It is worth noting that when Augustus seized power in
Rome and served as a focus of loyalty to Italy and the empire alike, the
privileged status of Italy was carefully preserved.

Against this background, Cicero captures for us towards the end of his
life both the awareness that much had changed in Italy in the previous
generation and a sense of the constraints on change (De Legibus
1I.1.2—2.§):

‘,.. this is my and my brother’s real country (germana patria) ... ‘But’ replied
Atticus ‘what was it that you said just now, that this place — for] take it that you
mean Arpinum — is your real country. For surely you do not have two countries;
rather Rome is the country of us all. Unless perhaps the country of Cato was not
Rome, but Tusculum.’ ‘But I do think that he and everyone from a municipium
has two countries, one by descent, one by citizenship.”!”

The central problem, then, is to try and understand just how far, and
why, the different local cultures of Italy, in the sense of shared and
transmitted practices and values within particular regions, survived into
and beyond the age of Augustus.

One point must first be made, namely that the tenacity of Greek
culture in some cities of the south cannot be taken as typical. Its survival
was helped by two factors, the existence outside Italy of thousands of
cities of Greek language and culture, contact with which reinforced
Greek culture and institutions in Italy, and the value attached by the
Roman elite to Greek culture, which served to nurture those centres of
Greek civilization which lay close at hand.!8 This factor had probably
already begun to operate before the Social War. And the Greek cities of
Italy were largely exempt from the convulsions which we shall shortly
see to have played a major part in the Romanization of Italy in general. It
is in this context that we should understand the hesitation of Neapolis

16 See Rawson 1985 (E 107); Pais 1918 (E 88) 1 antedates the process where Rome and a foreign
state are concerned, as opposed to Rome and a mnicipium. Brunt 1982 (F 644) seems to me in the end
tight co argue, against Braunert 1966 (£9), and Galsterer 1976 (E 52) 162—4, that in purely legal terms
there was no case against Balbus.

7 See Hammond 1951 (E 54); also de Ruggiero 1921 (F 686); Bonjour 1975 (£7). Gely 1974 (E 53)
romanticizes. 18 D’Arms 1970 (E 30).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

420 13a. ITALY AND ROME

and Heraclea before accepting Roman citizenship when they were
offered it in 90 B.c.; the survival of local issues of coinage at Heraclea,
Velia and indeed Paestum;!9 and the persistence of the Greek language
and of Greek institutions in general, at Neapolis, Velia, Rhegium,
Tarentum, Canusium.”9 It is curious that the two Latin municipal
charters of the republican period which we possess come from the Greek
city of Tarentum and froma shrine in the territory of Heraclea; Heraclea
drifted quietly out of existence in the age of Augustus; but Tarentum
continued as a recognizably Greek city in the early Empire. And the
separateness of the south in the age of Augustus is reflected in the fact
that Strabo discusses Bruttium, Lucania and Magna Graecia in the
context of a Greek tradition which contrasted the archaic and classical
periods with the hellenistic and Roman, but saw the whole as the single
history of a separate area.2! Even so, and despite the disappearance of
much evidence — C.T. Ramage, an intrepid Scot who walked the length
and breadth of Magna Graecia just after the Bourbon restoration, saw a
Greek inscription of the second century a.D., now lost, recording an
agonistic festival at Scolacium — there is no good reason to suppose that
any part of Italy remained recognizably Greek beyond the middle of the
third century a.p.22

Of local practices, and of men’s attachment to them, Cicero preserves
a couple of rare glimpses. The first is no more than a casual reference to
the occasion, ‘cum eius in nuptiis more Larinatium multitudo hominum
pranderet’, ‘when at his marriage according to the custom of the people
of Larinum a large number of people were dining together’ (C/w. 166).
But the second relates to the slave ministri, attendants, of Mars at
Larinum, where ‘repente Oppianicus eos omnis liberos esse civisque
Romanos coepit defendere’, ‘suddenly Oppianicus began to claim that
they were all free and Roman citizens’; so attached were the people of
Larinum to their customs that they persuaded A. Cluentius Habitus to be
their advocate and take their case to Rome (C/u. 43-4). A further glimpse

19 Crawford 1985 (B 320), 71-2; for isolated survivals of non-Roman units of reckoning, weights
and measures, see sbid., 14~16, 177-8; there is a full description, based on autopsy, of the mensa
ponderaria at Pompeii in Conway 1897 (E 23)1, App. 1. The stone is cut according to the Oscan foot.
When the mensa ponderaria was converted to the Roman system, the five original holes were enlarged
and four new ones cut (Prosdocimi 1978 (E 100) 1072~—3); but the sexfarius remained Oscan, while the
ratios with the other measures of capacity became Roman.

20 A provisional statement in Crawford 1978 (F 20) 195 n. 12; note a statue of a Greek in a toga at
Velia, de Franciscis 1970 (E 40); and see Sartori 1976 (E 118); Keuls 1976 (E 67); Lepore 1983 (£ 76);
see Appendix I], p. 981. It will not do to talk in the same breath of Tarentum and the rest of Italy as
does Torelli 1984 (E 132) 42-3. 4 Prontera 1988 (E 99).

2 The Nooks and Byways of Italy. Wanderings in Search of Its Ancient Remains and modern Superstitions
(Liverpool, 1868) 133; there is no reason to believe that the Pettorano fragment of the Prices Edict of
Diocletian is of Carrara marble or that it was ever displayed in a Greek-speaking part of Italy;
Guarducci (1985 (B 238)) has now revealed that the sample shown to her experts was diminutive; and
visual identifications of diminutive fragments are worthless.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMANIZATION 421

comes from a letter of the emperor Marcus Aurelius to Fronto in the
middle of the second century A.D., recording how a native of Anagnia
knew and cared enough to explain to him, when he visited the city, that a
religious formula inscribed in Latin above a gate of the city used a
technical term of Hernican origin (Fronto, 66-7 Naber=6o0 van den
Hout).

The survival of such practices was no doubt favoured by the extent to
which the communities of Italy not only administered their own cities,
but also performed tasks which other societies assign to central struc-
tures. The main lines for the government of Italy were presumably laid
down in the immediate aftermath of the Social War, in order to cope with
the incorporation of half the communities of Italy into the Roman citizen
body. But it is also important to remember that the age of Cicero was in
addition a period which saw the normalization of the government of
communities which had long been Roman. Capua, deprived of the right
to govern itself in 211 B.c., became a colony in 59-58 B.c. A constitution
was given to Cingulum by T. Labienus on the eve of the outbreak of war
in 49 B.c. The constitution of Arpinum was revised in 46 B.c., with the
support of Cicero, by his son and his nephew and a colleague. The same
period saw the progressive elimination, by promotion to municipal
status or by incorporation in another municipium, of the praefecturae, fora
and conciliabula which had served as provisional communities for groups
of Roman citizens in the course of the conquest and settlement of Italy.
Normalization may also be observed in a different context. The pagi of
the Frentani, Carricini, Marrucini, Paeligni and Vestini, the vici of the
Vestini, Marsi, Aequiculi and Sabini, both were accommodated into the
structure of Roman Italy in the generation after the Social War, but were
eliminated thereafter, probably by Caesar. Naturally, there was never
one single measure which regulated all the affairs of every single
municipium. But there are some minimal elements which must have
figured in the Lex Iulia granting citizenship in 90 B.C. or in a subsequent
statute; and there are many institutions which are common to many of
the new municipia of the period.

It is perhaps not very important to decide whether these were imposed
by measures passed at Rome or introduced by the men who provided the
new communities with their charters, drawing on the shared experience
of centuries of giving constitutions to communities in Italy or overseas.
The Lex Iulia itself must have imposed the rule that a community must
vote to accept the Roman citizenship; it may also have laid down the
obligation that the new municipia must be constituted by an appropriate
person or persons. Their supreme magistrates seem normally to have

® For particularly interesting cases of constitutio, see Harvey 1973 (£ 57); Gabba 1983 (E 47); for
this paragraph as a whole, see Crawford, forthcoming (E 29).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

422 13a. ITALY AND ROME

been IIIIviri, probably flanked by praefecti iure dicundo, prefects in charge
of jurisdiction, as replacements when necessary; the institution of the
interrex was perhaps also transmitted to the government of the municipia
at this point.24 Such aspects of municipal government were perhaps
directly imposed by statute, rather than emerging from the consensus of
the men who constituted the new municipia. And at some point a general
statute was certainly passed that governed the co-optation of decurions
in municipia.25 The arrangements for local censuses recorded in the
Tabula Heracleensis almost certainly go back to the period immediately
after the Social War;?6 and the recurrence in the late Republic and early
Empire of the phrase ‘coloni (or municipes), incolae, hospites, adven-
tores’, ‘citizens of the colony (or of the municipium), resident outsiders,
guests, visitors’, suggests very strongly that this was an official definition
of the population of an Italian community.2”? There are in addition
references already in the late Republic to formal rules governing
expenditure by local magistrates on games or buildings.?8 Municipal
charters probably also included rules for the location of sstrina, crema-
toria, and cemeteries.

Surviving fragments of charters alas often pose more problems than
they solve. The only straightforward text is the Lex Tarentina, the
preserved part of which makes it clear that the text relates solely to
Tarentum; it contains the remains of chapters dealing with the improper
handling of pegunia publica, sacra, religiosa; the security given by the first
IIIIviri and aediles of the municipium and by candidates for election; the
property qualification for decurions; the demolition of buildings; viae,
fossae, cloacae, and departure from the municipium.*. By way of contrast,
the fragments of statutes from Falerio seem to be concerned with the
regulation of jurisdiction, but in more than one community;* the
fragment from Ateste certainly regulates jurisdiction in any subordinate
community without restriction of locality.7! In some ways, our best
evidence comes from the substantial portion which has been preserved
of the charter for the Caesarian colony of Urso in Spain, where the text
relates once again solely to Urso.*? The range of material is similar to that

24 ILLRP 555 (Beneventum); 627 (Narbo); ILS 6285 (Formiae),; 6279 (Fundi); ILS 6975
(Nemausus); CIL rv 54, also 13, 50, 3, 56, 70 (for C. Popidius at Pompeii. The import even of these
texts is not wholly clear; and 48, 3822 and 9827 are manifestly irrelevant; Castrén 1975 (E 12) 51 is
misleading); Gonzalez, Actas I Cong. And. Est.Clas. (Jaén, 1982), 223 = AE 1982, 511 (Siarum); see
also Roman Statutes 1995 (F 684) no. 25, ch. 130 (Urso).

25 See the Lex Irnitana, Gonzalez 1986 (B 235), ch. 31, where “quod ante h(anc) I(egem) rogatam
iure more eiius municipi fuerunt’ is clearly the result of imperfect adaptation of a chapter of a general
statute; the charters of the Flavian municipia of Baetica can hardly have been individually passed
through an assembly at Rome. % Roman Statutes 1995 (F 684) no. 24, lines 142-58.

77 Paci 1989 (B 260) 1 25—33; the phrase is echoed by Cicero, Leg. Agr. 11. 94: ‘nos autem hinc Roma
{to Capua] qui veneramus, iam non hospites, sed peregrini atque advenae nominabamur’.

28 ILLRP 648 (Pompeii); compare 675 (Telesia). 29 Roman Statutes (F 684), no. 15.
% Ibid. nos. 17, 18. 3 Ibid. no. 16. 32 Ibid. no. 25.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMANIZATION 423

in the Lex Tarentina, though, since much more is preserved, there are
many aspects which are not represented at Tarentum; but two of the
chapters at Tarentum reappear at Urso, as also in the charters issued by
the Flavian emperors to the new Latin municipia of Baetica, those dealing
with the demolition of buildings and with viae, fossae, cloacae.>3 Inferences
about earlier charters on the basis of the Flavian charters, however,
would be very dangerous; it is clear that they are much better organized
and much more economically drafted than the Tarentum or Urso
charters and it may be that they are more comprehensive. The two
remaining texts are both entirely sai generis.4 The Tabula Heracleensis
comes from a sanctuary near the borders of the territories of Heraclea
and Metapontum; it appears to contain excerpts from a Roman statute
dealing with roads and public space in the city and from another (or from
others) dealing with qualifications for decurions and magistrates, cen-
suses in the towns of Roman Italy, constitution of wunicipia. What we
have of the text of the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina comes from Veleia, in the
Apennines near Parma, and seems to be a statute which transmitted to
Cisalpine Gaul after it became part of Italy in 42-41 B.c. many, perhaps
all, of the substantive rules of the Roman ius civile; the single surviving
tablet bears the number IIII and goes from the middle of Ch. XIX to the
middle of Ch. XXIII, dealing with operis novi nuntiatio, damnum infectum,
pecunia certa credita, any other debt, the actio familiae erciscundae, all at a
very high level of technicality and complexity.35

The communities of Italy did not possess capital jurisdiction after the
Social War;3¢ but it is striking that they preserved some military and
police functions, not only in the late Republic, but even beyond.
Archaeological evidence reveals substantial wall-building in the late
Republic, for instance at Spoletium and Ferentinum, not surprising in
the disturbed circumstances of the period and carefully to be dis-
tinguished from the symbolic walls with which Augustan foundations
like Saepinum or Augusta Bagiennorum were equipped.37 And an
inscription from Praeneste refers to the building of vigi/iae, guard posts,
two inscriptions, from Brundisium and Formiae, to the building of an
armamentarium, arms depot;*8 while Cicero refers to the Larinates who
have come to Rome to defend his client who would otherwise have been

33 Gonzalez 1986 (B 235) chs. 62 and 82. * Roman Statutes 1995 (F 684), nos. 24 and 26.

35 For what may be inferred about developments in municipal charters in the Caesarian and
Augustan ages, see M.H. Crawford (n. 23).

% M.H. Crawford (n. 23).

37 Spoletium: CIL x1 4809, not in ILLRP or CIL 8, fasc. 4, but see Gaggiotti ef a/. 1980 (E 50)
107; Ferentinum: CIL x 5837=ILLRP 584.

38 Praeneste: ILLRP 653; Brundisium: ILLRP 558; Formiae: A. Colombini, Athenaeum 1966,
137; for local military exercise grounds, see Devijver and van Wonterghem 1981-2 (£ 35).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

424 13a. ITALY AND ROME

available to defend their city (C/v. 195). And at some point in the
troubled history of the late Republic, Ostia was perhaps rescued from
attack not by a Roman magistrate, but by C. Cartilius Poplicola, [vir of
Ostia.3°

It is then not surprising that these largely autonomous local administ-
rations of late republican Italy should have invested heavily in building
programmes in general, to create an urban centre where none existed
before, to provide for the administration of the newly constituted
community, simply as an expression of civic pride.*°

And naturally enough also, the existence of local administration in the
late Republic and in the imperial age was reflected in the inscription of
lists of local magistrates and priests and in the erection of e/ogia of local
worthies, past and present. But such practices are as much evidence of
the influence of Roman models as they are of local particularism. As
evidence of the survival ofa local culture, in the sense in which we have
defined it, they leave much to be desired. In particular, the Elogia
Tarquiniensia and the Fasti of the Aaruspices reflect the fact that the
senatorial families of Etruria were competing in the political life of
Rome; for they transfer to Tarquinii practices characteristic of the urban
aristocracy.41 Against the background of this general pattern, little
weight should be attached to the occasional use of a local era for dating
purposes, conspicuously at Patavium, where a handful of inscriptions
are dated by an era beginning in 173 B.c.; Rome had intervened to
resolve internal strife in 174 B.c. (Livy, xL1.27.3—4) and the magistrates
of the following year no doubt regarded themselves as the first of a re-
founded community.*2

II, SURVIVAL OF LOCAL CULTURES

The following discussion, then, of the survival of local cultures
concentrates on what seem to be four important identifying features of
any ancient culture with a claim to be individual and distinctive:
language, religion, family structures, disposal of the dead. We shall of
course never know in detail in what ways the behaviour and mentality of
the peasants of Etruria or Samnium changed during the century which

39 Zevi 1976 (E 142) 56-60. For the overly zealous police of Saepinum in the second century a.D.,
see now Lo Cascio 1985-90 (E 79); Brunt 1990 (a 12), 427-8. 40 Gabba 1972 (E 44).

4 Fasti: [fal xu 2, no. 6 (Venusia); CIL x 1233 (Nola); 5403, with Solin 1988 (B 285) 90-1
(Interamna); AE 1905, 192 (Teanum). Lists of pontifices. CIL 1x 3254 (Sutri); Elogia Tarquiniensia:
Torelli 1975 (B 291); Cornell 1976 (E 24); Cornell 1978 (E 25); Gabba 1979 (E 46), arguing rightly that
the erection of the Elogia Tarquiniensia is to be explained in the context of the antiquarianism of
Rome of the second century a.D., rather than in that of the local culture of Tarquinii.

42 Harris 1977 (E 56); Linderski 1983 (E 78) (the resolution of the letter N); there are isolated
examples of the same phenomenon at Feltria, also at Interamna Nahars, Bovillae and Puteoli
(ILLRP $18); compare also Cato, Orig. fr. 49 P=. 16 Chassignet, on Ameria.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LOCAL CULTURES 425

saw the collapse of the Republic and the establishment of the Empire.
But the four themes discussed have the merit that the evidence for them
carries us to a level far below that of the inner core of the elite. And, in
principle, the catalysts which were at work should have affected all levels
of society in largely equal measure.

1. Language

The only two indigenous non-Latin languages of Italy for which there is
any significant evidence later than the Social War are Etruscan and
Oscan, though little of the evidence for the latter comes from Samnium,
because of the ravages of Sulla.*3 Furthermore, the process of transition
seems to have been extremely rapid; there is only one Oscan bilingual
inscription; and even in the case of Etruria, where the phenomenon is on
a somewhat larger scale, it is actually quite restricted.“ As for late texts in
Etruscan, apart from a gem from Tarquinii, which may have migrated
after being inscribed, and a stone from Pesaro, which certainly did so, the
thirty or so texts, mostly of the very end of the second and the first half of
the first century B.c., all come from the region of Clusium, Arretium,
Perusia and Volaterrae, mainly from Clusium. No local language can be
shown to have lasted in public use much into the first century A.D.; only
Etruscan survived in some form for a time, a preserve of scholars and
antiquarians. It is in this context significant that the family of Urgula-
nilla, wife of Claudius, emperor and Etruscologist, was quite untypical
in the extent to which it consciously kept itself Etruscan.*>

We simply do not know to what extent Rome willed the disappear-
ance, at any rate at an official level, of languages other than Latin. If we
could hold that the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae fell after the Social War,
we should have an indication that Latin was not prescribed for municipal
charters. But it is almost certainly earlier (see above); and the municipal
charter of the indubitably Greek city of Tarentum was promulgated in
Latin, probably sometime in the 80s or 70s B.c. In any case, it is unlikely
that in Italy after 90 B.c. Rome recognized any language other than Latin
for her own purposes; and certain institutions, such as ethnic con-
tingents in the Roman army, which will have helped to preserve local
languages before the Social War, disappeared at or soon after the same
date. The literary language of late republican and early imperial Italy

43 See in general de Simone 1980 (£ 121); Coleman 1986 (£ 22). The best account of the
disappearance of Etruscan is still that of Harris 1971 (E 55) 172-84; note also 1975 (E64); Michelsen
197§ (8 254): Etruscan letters in texts inscribed in Latin are of extreme rarity. For the disappearance
of Oscan at Pompeii, see Castren 1975 (E 12), 44-6. See Appendix III, p. 983.

4 Poccetti 1988 (E 97): the single Umbrian bilingual seems earlier chan the Social War.

45 Heurgon 1953 (£ 59); Briquel 1990 (£ 10).

4° Tlari 1974 (D 196); the ethnic contingents in the army of Spartacus perpetuate earlier Roman
practice.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

426 13a. ITALY AND ROME

is remarkably uniform, despite the diversity of origin of those who
wrote it.

2. Religion

The evidence suggests a similar change in the orientation of religious
practice. First, calendars, whose centrality to Roman (as well as Greek)
religion needs no emphasis. We know from a variety of antiquarian
sources that in early times a number of Italian communities, even some
close to Rome, had calendars substantially different from each other and
from that of Rome (Varro, Antiquitates rerum divinarum, fr. 262
Cardauns):

... but in the town of Lavinium one whole month was assigned to Liber ...

and (Solinus 1.34 (so also August. De civ. D. xv.i12); see also Appendix
IV, p. 985):

... for before Augustus Caesar they reckoned the year in different ways, since in
Egypt it contained four months... in Italy at Lavinium thirteen, where the year
was of 374 days...

We know also that communities could and did change their calendars.*”
And they seem on the whole to have changed them systematically in the
direction of abandoning local peculiarities. Thus, a local calendar is last
attested epigraphically in Etruria at Ferentis in 67 B.c., that of Furfo in 58
B.c.48 The next stage was the massive diffusion in Italy under and after
Augustus of copies of the Julian calendar.*9

The Romanization of the religious map of Italy had indeed long been
under way. It had been the pontifices who had seen to the preservation of
the cults of communities which had become waunicipia (Festus 146 L).
And it seems clear that the best interpretation of the pattern of Roman
reactions to prodigies outside Rome is to suppose that it was always up
to the Senate to decide which to notice; and that it gradually took notice
of more and more on territory that was not Roman.*° The culmination of
this process is the position under the Empire; for shrines in Italy now
belong to the populus Romanus (Tac. Ana. 11.71):

47 To the texts cited above, add Suet. Aug. 59; Galsterer 1976 (E 52) 128-9, does not give
sufficient weight to the phenomenon.

48 ILLRP 389 (Ferentis), to be read with Emiliozzi 1983 (£ 39) (the name of the month is
uncertain, but is in any case not Chosfer); Degrassi 1961—2 (B 225); ILLRP 508, to be read with Lafi
1978 (E 69).

9 [tal xu 2, nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 37, 395 the e/ogia of Roman type from
Arretium and Pompeii form part of the same phenomenon.

3 McBain 1982 (F 177), with the review by Beard 1983 (F 90).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LOCAL CULTURES 427

It has been established ... that all ceremonies and temples and images of the
gods in Italian towns are under the control and power of Rome.

and (Frontinus, 56 L):

(... sacred groves in Italy), whose territory indubitably belongs to the Roman
people, even if they are within the boundaries of colonies and municipia ...

The position described by Tacitus and Frontinus was no doubt the result
of the enfranchisement of Italy; but it had been prepared by a long
process of growing Roman involvement in the religion of Italy.

Evidence for change in religious practice is also provided by the
pattern of votive offerings in the rural shrines of Italy, small and large
alike. Here the evidence is now sufficient in bulk to show that the
frequentation of rural shrines in Italy is a phenomenon which largely
comes to an end at the turn of the eras (for some examples see Appendix
V, p- 987).

Naturally, this is not to be regarded simply as a consequence of a
process of Romanization, not least because it also affected shrines
situated in areas which had long been ager Romanus, Roman territory. In
part, we are presumably witnessing the consequence of the process of
urbanization which affected much of Italy, albeit on a scale not to be
exaggerated, in the first century B.c. and the first century a.p.5! It was
this process which helped to put an end to the independence of the pagi,
which had flourished as a form of local administration in the territory of
the Frentani, Carricini, Marrucini, Paeligni and Vestini between the
Social War and Caesar, electing magistrates, raising money, passing
decrees, erecting buildings.52 Corroboration for such a view may be
found in the fact that those rural shrines which survived tended to do so
because their organization was incorporated into the administrative
structure of a nearby city: such is the case of the sanctuary of Hercules
Curinus and Sulmo or of that of Rossano di Vaglia and Potentia; the
result was similar for the sanctuary at Lacus Clitumni, given by
Augustus not to a neighbouring town, but to Hispellum.

None the less, a shift of population and power from country to town is
neither the only nor perhaps the principal factor at work. Rather, as we
shall see, the social transformation of Italy in the last generation of the
Republic and the age of revolution was responsible. Rural shrines were
necessarily dependent on supporting social structures; and it was
precisely these that were destroyed, in Roman and Italian territory alike,
but with far more devastating consequences in the latter.

It is in the sphere of religion, moreover, that we are confronted with

51 E. Gabba (n. go). 52 Frederiksen 1976 (E 42).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

428 134. ITALY AND ROME

specific evidence for the adoption in Italy of Roman models. One of the
most important recent discoveries relevant to the religion of the late
Republic has been the excavation of the auguraculum of Bantia: a platform
from which an augur observed the flights of the birds and a series of
inscribed cippi indicating the significance of the birds which appeared
above them. It now appears that a first phase of the structure, in which
the Oscan names of the deities recorded on the cippi were used, is to be
dated to the nineties. Ata later stage, at least one text was replaced witha
Roman name of the deity concerned.53 Consonant with this evidence is
Cicero’s remark on augury by birds, as practised in Phrygia, Pisidia,
Cilicia and Arabia (De Div. 1.92): ‘we have heard that this also used to be
practised in Umbria’.54

3. Family structures

To turn to the third theme, we are told by Aulus Gellius that the
enfranchisement of all Latin communities after the Social War meant the
disappearance there of actionable sponsalia, legally enforceable engage-
ments to marry;55 and the Tabula Siarensis, a copy of part of the measures
honouring Germanicus after his death, now provides dramatic confir-
mation that some rules for sponsalia were indeed different for Romans
and Latins.56 We may also suppose that after the Social War the serf
population of Etruria, insofar as it still existed, became free. Otherwise,
we are lamentably ignorant of the private law of the different Italian
communities, even in the case of Larinum, for which we have the
information in the pro C/uentio;5” and it is not at all clear that the statement
of Cato, ‘If an Arpinate dies, the sacra do not follow his heir’ (Orig. fr. 61
P=11.31 Chassignet), even refers to the law of persons in Arpinum,*®
rather than to the sacred law. But it is probably legitimate to suppose that
a faint reflection of original diversity is to be found in patterns of
nomenclature different from the Roman.

To take three examples, a traditional Etruscan practice was to give the
mother’s name; this practice of metronymy is still attested on some
bilingual inscriptions or texts in Latin only of the late Republic and then
dies out.59 Oscan practice was to give the father’s praenomen in the

33M. Torelli, RAL 8, 24, 1969, 9-48, ‘Contributi al Supplemento del CIL tx’, at 39-48; Torelli
1983 (E131); 1984 (E 133); a cippus from Frigento, published by C. Grella, Economia Irpina 1976, 1, pi.
9, is alas probably a mere boundary stone, not a cippus from a similar axguraculum, contra (n. 3), 156.

4 See also Rawson 1978 (E 106), citing Philodemus on Stoicism in ‘what was once Etruria’ (not to
be taken as a way of referring to Rome).

55 Gell. NA tv.4.1-4; for the probable position at Rome, see Watson 1967 (F 700) 11-18: the
arguments from Plautus are not very safe. 5 Roman Statutes 1995 (F 684) no. 37.

57 Moreau 1983 (E 85) 117-18.

58 As held by Humbert 1978 (£ 61) 305 n. 71a, whom I originally followed (n. 3), 155.
3% ILLRP 790 (Montepulciano), 570, 904 (Clusium), 638, 814 (Perusia).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LOCAL CULTURES 429

genitive, after the cognomen, but without the equivalent of ‘f(ilius)’; again,
the practice is still attested on a few Latin inscriptions and then
disappears.© In this case, it is particularly striking that the Romanization
of Oscan nomenclature, which occurred in Italy after the Social War,
took place among Oscan speakers on Delos before the Social War.®!
Notoriously, the experiences and interaction of Romans and Italians as
men of business abroad was a major factor in the assimilation of the two.
Umbrian practice was to give the father’s praenomen in the genitive,
between the praenomen and the cognomen; a group of funerary inscriptions
from Tuder, of a single family, illustrates the process of transition
(Vetter 232): the male of the first generation adopts Umbrian practice, as
wellas still writing from right to left; his daughter and her husband write
from left to right; their son adopts Roman practice, though his language
is still Umbrian, even if written from left to right.

On one level, the explanation of the changes we have just been
considering is to hand. With the enfranchisement of Italy, the Roman
civil law was the only system which a magistrate could apply; and when a
man was listed in the Roman census, he was naturally obliged to use the
Roman system of nomenclature. But we have already seen that the first
complete census of Italy was that of Augustus in 28 B.c. and there is in
any case no a priori reason to suppose that a man would describe himself
in the same way to a Roman censor (whether via a local magistrate or
not) and on his own tomb; and one should not overestimate the
effectiveness of enfranchisement in spreading the Roman civil law.®
Rather, much deeper convulsions in Italian society are to be invoked, as
we shall see.

4. Disposal of the dead

Here, if anywhere, we should expect conservatism of practice. Yet it is
precisely here that the late first century B.c. and the early first century
A.D. see the disappearance of dozens of local styles of funerary monu-
ment and the abandonment of cemeteries with centuries of use behind
them.

The phenomenon was originally identified by M.W. Frederiksen,
publishing a group of funerary monuments characteristic of Capua and
the immediate vicinity, which cease to be produced with the coming of

© ILLRP 286 (Trasacco of the Marsi), 483 (Ager Falernus), 1254 (Forum Novum in Sabina);
Vetter 195 (Lucania); see in general Lejeune 1976 (£ 74), for the loss of the rich variety of Oscan
praenomina, the emergence of standard abbreviations for the praenomina that survived, the adoption
of the abbreviation ‘f(ilius)’ and the appearance of cognomrina. 5 Poccetti 1984 (E 96).

62 Domitian’s letter to Irni shows fora later period how difficult the process was; Mourgues 1987
(B 257) is not persuasive.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

430 13a. ITALY AND ROME

the Principate.®> A few kilometres away, the area between Pompeii and
Nuceria Alfaterna had a quite different type of monument, equally
characteristic of the locality and equally doomed to disappear. In
Latium, a type of monument characteristic of the Volsci has a similar
chronology. North of Rome, the great Etruscan cemeteries go out of use
in the age of Augustus or shortly afterwards (for documentation of some
examples see Appendix VI, p. 987). In one particular case, we can link the
abandonment of a family tomb with Romanization in its most complete
form: the tomb of the Salvii at Ferentis was abandoned in 23 B.c. as the
family transferred to Rome. We shall see in a moment what came after.

It is time to return to Cicero. ‘Hinc enim’, he observed of Arpinum, ‘orti
stirpe antiquissima sumus, hic sacra, hic genus, hic maiorum multa
vestigia’, referring surely to the cults, the long family history, the tombs
of his ancestors.®5 His characterization of what was to him distinctive of
Arpinum coincides precisely with those aspects of local culture, omitting
language, in which traditional local practices were abandoned during the
late Republic and the early Empire.

The evidence of material culture, when not embedded in religious or
funerary practice, naturally needs to be handled with caution. Yet surely,
in the light of what we have seen so far, it is legitimate to point also to the
uniformity of building styles in early imperial Italy as further evidence of
cultural assimilation. Further striking evidence of integration is
provided by an altogether humbler artefact, the red-gloss table-ware that
graced the tables of the middle classes of Augustan Italy. Whereas the
black-gloss table-ware of the Republic had been produced in dozens of
kilns the length and breadth of Italy, the age of revolution witnessed
concentration of production at a relatively small number of centres, of
which the best known is that of Arretium. Diffused from these centres
throughout Italy, the pottery in question is clear evidence of a consider-
able degree of economic integration and the counterpart of the process
of cultural assimilation discussed above.*’

It seems likely then that Augustan (and early imperial) Italy was more
homogeneous than at any time before or since. Her unity was expressed

63 Frederiksen 1959 (£ 41) = (in part) Frederikson 1984 (£ 43) 285-318, 281-4.

6 Degrassi 1961-2 (B 225).

65 See Leg. 11.1.2-2.5, with n. 17 above; compare Of. 1. 54-5, ‘magnum est enim eadem habere
monumenta maiorum, iisdem uti sacris, sepulcra habere communia’; the passage has nothing to do
with the institution of a common tomb for a single family, contra de Visscher 1963 (E 135) 129-30.

6 Bejor 1979 (F 269) 126; Rossignani 1990 (E 115); Italy is hardly present in the great exhibition
catalogue Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik 1988 (F 443).

67 A similar pattern on a smaller scale is also evinced by the red-gloss table-ware produced at
Puteoli, Pucci 1981 (£ 101) 107-10; and in the pottery style discussed by Lavizzari Pedrazzini 1987 (£
72). See also M. Torelli (n. 20), at 34-6, for the spread throughout Italy between 50 a.c. and the tum
of the eras of the ‘villa system’, whatever precisely that may have been.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LOCAL CULTURES 43!

in the creation by Augustus of a single system of administrative regions,
seven in peninsular Italy and four in the Po valley, whose boundaries
regularly cut across earlier ethnic and cultural boundaries, placing
Ligurian Luna in Etruria, Campanian or Samnite Caudium in Apulia,
Latin Tibur in Samnium.®

This relative unity of Augustan Italy, however, remains to be
explained. In part the answer must lie in the nature of military service in
the years after the Social War. The legions consisted of men from all
over Italy, probably without wives or families until after their period of
service, removed from their homes, insofar as they had them, for long
periods, further mixed by the drafting of reinforcements to existing
legions, all with Latin as their only common language. We have already
seen that the use of ethnic contingents came to an end with the Social
War. The unity of Augustan Italy was surely in part forged on the
battlefields of the late Republic.

Yet that is not all. The late Republic and the age of revolution are
periods when on a quite unparalleled scale men were removed from their
homes not simply for long periods, but for ever, and resettled as
individuals or in colonies at the other end of Italy.” The process begins
with Sulla, accelerates with the /ex agraria of Caesar in 59 B.c. and reaches
massive proportions in the triumviral period and the early years of
Augustus. It is this mixing process which explains the origins of the
culture of Augustan Italy.7!

Nor were soldiers the only people affected. Generally speaking, we
have no idea of what happened to those who were dispossessed to make
way for the veterans settled after 42 B.c. For it is a mistake to suppose
that the Ec/ogues have any value as evidence for the biography of an
individual known as Virgil; there remains naturally a faint possibility
that one or two of the dispossessed were poets who commended
themselves to the imperial authorities. But there seem to have been some
refugees from Mantua who were settled near Bononia;’2 others from
Cremona turned up in Concordia in the age of revolution.”3 There must
have been thousands who found somewhere new in Italy to live, even
allowing for those who died or emigrated.

Archaeological evidence allows us a glimpse of men who clung to

68 Thomsen 1947 (E 127); Nicolet 1988 (A 69) 221-3; for Italy under the Empire, see Eck 1979 (E
38).

6 Smith 1958 (D 232); Harmand 1967 (p 193); Keppie 1983 (£ 65).

® Vittinghoff 1952 (c 239); Keppie 1983 (E 65); for Schneider 1977 (D 231), see the review by
Keppie 1981 (p 201), rightly dismissive; for some recent new evidence, see Tagliaferri 1986 (E 125);
Solin 1988 (B 285) 99-101.

71 Note that in the eyes of Aulus Gellius intermarriage with other groups by men of the Marsi led
to the loss of their magic powers, NA xvi.11.1. 7 Susini 1976 (E 124).

7 Panciera 1985 (E 91).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

432 13a. ITALY AND ROME

some of their ancestral traditions in their new homes. Within the general
uniformity of the grave monuments of early imperial Italy, stelae or
altars, there are for instance traces in Gallia Cisalpina of the funerary
practices of the central Apennines; or of those of Rome in Umbria or
Sabinum (for some examples see Appendix VII, p. 989). It is also
important to remember that the convulsions just described must have
affected equally the elites of the communities of Italy; in large numbers,
their members joined the armies of the late Republic, to serve as junior
officers. It is these men who, survivors of and enriched by the murderous
battles of the civil wars, diffused in central Italy the habit, limited to the
early Julio-Claudian period, of erecting lavish monumental graves
decorated with ‘fregi d’armi’, friezes portraying weapons and armour.”4
They also no doubt played a large part in the diffusion of grave
monuments with Doric friezes;’5 it should come as no surprise to
observe that such monuments are unknown in Magna Graecia, but it is
interesting that they are equally unknown in much of Etruria. Re/atively
little veteran settlement — only Luca and Pisa are certainly later than
Caesar — and a certain Etruscan cultural cohesiveness will explain the
pattern.’ Someone who may stand as a symbol of the age, geographi-
cally and socially mobile, a pillar of a new society, is P. Otacilius Arranes,
the son of a Spanish horseman enfranchised by Cn. Pompeius Strabo at
Asculum, who ended up as a municipal magistrate at Casinum.””

With these convulsions in mind, let us return to problems of family
structure and religious practice. The total abandonment at Ateste, at the
turn of the eras, of traditional Venetic practice over nomenclature, at the
same time as traditional funerary customs, was not simply the result of
enfranchisement and the passage of time. Rather it must have been
largely the result of the brutal injection into the community of the
veterans of the Fifth and Eleventh Legions, along with some others,
after the Battle of Actium. We should be surprised, not that there was
some change, but that the worship of the Venetic Dea Raetia continued
at all.78

As far as religious practice is concerned, we should surely, in
considering the abandonment of rural sanctuaries which had attracted
worshippers for centuries, attach great importance to the way in which
the period between Sulla and the reign of Augustus saw Italian

™ For the phenomenon in general, see the articles in Studi Miscellanei 10, 1963—4; Torelli 1976 (E
130) tor, fora case at Faterii Novi linked to colonization.

78 Torelli 1969 (E 129): one of the monuments at Beneventum is again that of a veteran; see now
also Sena Chiesa 1986 (£ 119) (at least from the area of Mediolanum).

% L. Keppie (n. 69) supersedes the speculations of Ciampoltrini 1981 (£ 16).

7 CIL 2 3107.

78 Crawford 1989 (E 28), correcting (n. 3), 160; for the gravestones of the imperial period, see
Bermond Montanari 1959 (E 3).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LOCAL CULTURES 433

community after Italian community lose its own young men for ever,
rich and poor like, often to suffer in addition the enforced settlement of
total strangers.79 This is the process which created the relative unity of
Augustan Italy. We have for the Roman world no documents compar-
able to those available to the modern historian. But it is not hard to
project back into the Roman world the situation of the villages of France
in our own century:

The war of 1914-18 was different. As Father Garneret described it for the
Franche-Comté, it was ‘the bloody break that struck our villages sucha blow: 20
dead for 300 inhabitants and all the customs shattered’.

7 Compare Coarelli 1981 (£ 18) 242-4, for the disappearance between Republic and Empire of a
group of families installed there earlier in the republican period.
8 Weber, Peasants into Frenchmen (above, n. 14) 476.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 136

SICILY, SARDINIA AND CORSICA

R. J. A. WILSON

Shortly before his death in 44 8.c. Iulius Caesar granted Latin rights
(Latinitas) to all free-born Sicilians. Cicero, to whom we owe this
information, clearly did not approve of the grant, still less of Antony’s
conversion of it into full citizenship in March or April 44, on the dubious
pretext that such had been Caesar’s intention;! for, despite being a
Roman province for close on two hundred years (‘the first to teach our
ancestors what a fine thing it is to rule over foreign nations’, as Cicero
put it),? Sicily remained at the time of the late Republic a fundamentally
Greek island. Italians had of course been involved there as landowners
or negotiatores in considerable numbers from at least the second century
B.C., forming themselves in ‘conventus civium Romanorum’ outside the
administrative jurisdiction of the Sicilian towns. Very few Sicilians had
been granted Roman citizenship, the evidence of Cicero yielding only
some fourteen names, and of two possible novi homines in the Senate who
came from Sicily neither are likely to have been Sicilian Greeks by birth.?
Latin in the province was still a foreign language spoken and understood
by a tiny minority: Cicero has to remind his audience that the Syracusans
call their curia the bouleuterion, expound in detail the Greek calendar
system still in use throughout Sicily, and explain Sicilian usage of Greek
words in the documents read out in court.4 Latin inscriptions of
republican date are rare (and in any case set up either by Italian
immigrants or by the provincial administration),° and the city constitu-
tions were still those of the hellenistic Greek world, with decrees issued
by ‘the council and the people’ (4 BovAy xai 6 dipos), and with
magistrates bearing such titles as prostates, strategos and agoranomos. It
was, therefore, on a considerably un-Romanized Sicily that Caesar
decided to confer the ius Latii in 44 B.c.

The Sicilian communities duly celebrated their new status ina number
of coins and inscriptions recording duoviri or the title municipium;

1 Cie. Ass. xIv.12.1. 2 Cic. un Verr. 2.1.2.
3 Wiseman 1971 (D 81) 22-3, 190; Sherwin-White 1973 (A 87) 306-7. Cf. also Fraschetti 1981 (£
159). 4 Cic. m Verr. 2.21.50; 2.52.1293 5-5 7-148.

5 E.g. ILS 864; AE 1963, 131; Manganaro 1972 (E 169) 453.

434

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SICILY, SARDINIA, CORSICA 435

significantly, with the exception of the occasional coin legend, the
language used was still Greek (do avdpes, tO prouviximov).6 The
documents belong to the period between 44 and 36, for the Sicilians
retained their privileges throughout this period: the Senate’s decision
late in 44 or early in 43 to rescind all Antony’s acta was ignored, for late in
43 the island was seized by Sextus Pompeius, and for the next seven years
she lay outside the direct political and military control of Rome.

How disastrous this period and its aftermath were for Sicily is
uncertain, but although the surviving sources, which depict Sextus
Pompeius as a ruthless freebooter determined to exploit the island to
further his own ends, are undoubtedly biased, it is hard to paint a rosy
picture of life in Sicily under Sextus Pompeius.’ The sudden blockade of
the corn supply to Italy from 43 until the Misenum accord with Octavian
in 39,8 with the resultant slump in demand and, presumably, in income,
together with the enlistment of Sicilian farmers in Sextus Pompeius’
legions, can hardly have been good news for Sicilian agriculture; nor can
the cities, for all their tacit acceptance of Pompeian control (with the
notable exceptions of Messana and Centuripae) have fared much better,
pressed to supply money and men for Sextus Pompeius’ army and fleet.
Yet more upheaval was caused by the arrival of thousands of fugitive
slaves and the victims of triumviral proscriptions and confiscations in
Italy, who found a haven in Pompeius’ Sicily. When the final showdown
came in 36 it was a bitter encounter, causing further devastation. Lepidus
landed in the west and stormed several cities, although Lilybaeum,
protected by her newly strengthened defences, resisted him; he then
marched across Sicily to meet up with Octavian, who had narrowly
escaped with his life when Sextus Pompeius surprised him at sea off
Tauromenium.? Octavian’s final crushing victory came off Naulochus,
and culminated in the capitulation of Pompeius’ land forces; in its
aftermath Messana was looted and burned. In the autumn of 36 Octavian
at last found himself master of Sicily, but of a province in disarray.

Octavian was in no mood to be forgiving. A massive indemnity of

® Coins: Grant 1946 (B $22) 190-2, 195; Burnett 1992 (B 311). Inscriptions: H. Willers, RM 60
(1905) 321-60; G. Manganaro, Cronache di Archeologia e Storiad’ Arte 3 (1964) 5 3-68 (Tauromenium);
IG xiv 367 (Haluntium); IG xiv 954 and AE 1966, 168 bis (Agrigentum). See also Wilson 1990 (E
197) 357 notes 25-6. I take AE 1966, 165 (= 1990, 437), referring to an drroixia at Centuripae, to
belong to 44 8.c. immediately after Caesar’s grant and before Antony’s conversion of it to full
citizenship (Wilson 1990 (E 197) 41-2); if so Caesar planned coloniae Latinae in Sicily along the lines of
those established in Narbonensis ¢. 45 B.C.

7 Pace Stone 1983 (£ 188). For this period in detail, Hadas 1930 (c 108) 71~1 50; Tarn 1934 (E 189);
Goldsberry 1982 (E 161) 489-97; Roddaz 1984 (c 200) 117-38.

8 Cessation of corn exports: App. BCiv. 1v.84—6, cf. Dio xLvitt.17.4—19; their resumption: App.
BCiv. v.56, 67-74; Dio xLvitt.36.1.

9 Lepidus: App. BCiv. v.98.408. Lilybaeurn defences: ILS 8891. Later stages: App. BCiv. v.105;
109; 110-12.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

8007 ‘ssorg AiszaatuQ eSsprquieg © sUTTUO saoisty espruquiey

SICILY, SARDINIA, CORSICA 437

1,600 talents was levied on cities which had actively supported Sextus
Pompeius, and his leading supporters were rounded up and executed.
Land was confiscated and some given as a reward for loyal service, such
as Agrippa’s Sicilian holdings managed by Horace’s friend Iccius; the
remainder formed the nucleus of what was later to become the huge
imperial estates in the island. The unfortunate inhabitants of Taurome-
nium, who had championed Pompeius’ cause and vigorously supported
him in the fighting of 36, were summarily deported.'° But Octavian’s
feelings towards the Sicilians were expressed in most telling fashion by
his decision to strip the Sicilians of the Latin right (é#s Latif) granted
them by Caesar. Octavian himself soon left the island, and the initial
steps to restore order to a chaotic province were entrusted to his
lieutenants. The Sicilians were left to count the costs of being on the
losing side in a bitter struggle, and to begin the slow and painful road to
recovery.

No ancient testimony specifically tells us that Sicily lost the Latin right
in 36, but it is implicit in the changes that were made fifteen years later in
21 B.c., when Augustus (as he now was) returned to Sicily (which in the
reorganization of 27 had become one of the provinces of the Roman
people, governed by a proconsul) at the beginning of a provincial tour.
Whether these changes involved the abolition of the tithe system
(decumana), which had operated throughout the Republic, and its
replacement by a fixed levy (stipendium), possibly but not certainly to be
paid henceforth in cash rather than in corn (as is sometimes argued), is far
from certain: the evidence for a change at this period is slight, and the
quota system certainly operated in other provinces during the early
Empire.' Six veteran colonies were founded, at Syracusae (Syracuse),
Catina (Catania), Tauromenium (Taormina), Tyndaris, Thermae Himer-
aeae (Termini Imerese) and Panormus (Palermo), perhaps all in 21 B.c.,
although Dio only specifies that Syracuse ‘and the others’ were settled in
that year.!2 Pliny also adds that Messana and Lipara were ‘oppida civium
Romanorum’, a term of uncertain significance, and that Segesta, Netum
(Noto) and Centuripae were ‘Latinae condicionis’, i.e. possessing the
Latin right. All other communities were listed as stipendiary and so non-
privileged. Since Pliny’s source for the status of these communities was

10 Indemnity: App. BCiv. v.129. Execution of Pompeians: Dio xxtx.12.4. Iecius: Hor. Epist.
1.12.1. Tauromenium: Diod. xv1.7.1 (presumably only the leading men if no colonia was founded
there until 21: see n. 12)

"Cf. P. Gamsey in Garnsey, Hopkins and Whittaker 1983 (D 130) 120-1, and P.A. Brunt, JRS 71
(1981) 162 (on lack of evidence for change); contra, Rickman 1980 (E 109) Go, 64-5.

12 Dio tiv.7.1. Foundation dates at Panormus and Tauromenium are uncertain: for the latter,
modern scholarly opinion is equally divided between 36 and 21 B.c. (Diod. xv1.7.1 and App. BCiv.
v.129 appear to be contradictory). Panormus is an Augustan colonia in Strab. v1.2.5 (272c) and CIL x

7279 but not designated as such by Pliny (HN 111.90), probably in error. For the case that both were
also founded in 21 B.c., Wilson 1990 (E 197) 33-4 (Tauromenium) and 37 (Panormus).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

438 136. SICILY, SARDINIA, CORSICA

almost certainly based on an Augustan census, the unavoidable conclu-
sion is that the wholesale grant of Latin rights had been revoked,
presumably in 36,13 and only later, in the settlement of 21, was it restored
to certain chosen communities. Four further cities (Halaesa, Haluntium,
Lilybaeum and Agrigentum) are known from coins and inscriptions to
have gained municipal status before a.p. 14,14 presumably at a date later
than that of Pliny’s source.

The availability of Sicilian land confiscated from supporters of Sextus
Pompeius and the island’s proximity to Italy made her an obvious and no
doubt popular choice for veteran settlement, and the influx of settlers
further swelled the Italian element of the population, an element already
proportionately larger than in any comparable area of the Greek-
speaking world. The foundation of colonize may indeed have been
consciously intended to act as a spur to the further Romanization of
Sicily, and the decree allowing senators to travel to the province without
specific permission from the emperor!5 can be interpreted as further
evidence of an attitude which regarded Sicily almost as an additional rego
of Italy. The fact that other communities sought and won municipal
status later in Augustus’ reign suggests that the ivs Latii was something
the Sicilians reckoned as worth having. Certainly it was only from
Augustan times onwards that the cultural Romanization of Sicily began
in earnest. Latin had come to stay. It was adopted almost universally on
official inscriptions and coin issues; and it now came into widespread use
for the first time in private dedications such as tombstones.

The co/oniae also acted as a spur to economic growth. Strabo reckoned
that the arrival of colonists always acted as a springboard for pros-
perity,!6 and in 21 B.c. Sicily was certainly ripe for redevelopment, for it
was no part of Augustus’ long-term policy to let the province languish in
a permanent state of economic decay. An active building programme
may well have been a tangible sign of economic stimulation, and Strabo
specifically says that Augustus restored Syracusae and Catina as well as
Centuripae, without giving details.'7 Nevertheless the list of public
buildings of probable Augustan or Julio-Claudian date in the Sicilian
coloniae is not inconsiderable: it includes, for example, at Syracusae, the

13, Not all scholars agree. Beloch 1886 (a 4) 327 emended Pliny’s text (HN 11.91) to imply that all
the communities were Latinae condicionis, but that Centuripae, Netum and Segesta were tax free
(immrunes), the rest stipendiary. Scramuzza 1937 (E 187) 343-7, Manganaro 1980 (E 170) 452, and
Clemente 1980 (E 154) 466—7 have followed Beloch, but tampering with Pliny’s text is unwarranted
(Wilson 1990 (E 197) 36-7).

14 CIL x 7463 (Haluntium), 7458 (Halaesa). Coins: Grant 1946 (B 322) 195-7; Burnett 1992 (B
311). Full references in Wilson 1990 (E 197) 42.

18 Probably Augustan, certainly pre-Claudian: Tac. Ann. x11.23.1 (A.D. 46), cf. Dio L11.42.6 (29
B.C.).

16 Cf. Strab. vitt.7.5 (386—8c) (on Patras) and v1.1.6 (257—9c) (on Reggio); cf. also RG 28.1; Suet.
Aug. 46. 47 Strab. vi.2.4 (269-72C¢).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SICILY, SARDINIA, CORSICA 439

amphitheatre, a monumental arch, the piazza and surrounding porticoes
laid out on the west side of the Altar of Hieron, alterations in the theatre,
and a repair of the walls (under Caligula), as well as waterworks and a
possible bath-house (the last under Claudius); reorganization of the
forum at Tauromenium and possibly the aqueduct and extensive
rebuilding of the theatre there; possibly the aqueduct and a version of the
theatre at Catina; and the aqueduct and major buildings in the forum at
Thermae Himeraeae. All this, together with the evidence of domestic
rebuilding at Tyndaris around the middle of the first century and the
suggestion of continued intensive occupation of the excavated residen-
tial quarter at the heart of Agrigentum, indicates economic vitality rather
than stagnation in the early Empire, and points to a relatively rapid
recovery and revitalization of these urban centres after the uncertain
period of the gos and 30s.!8

The choice of places for colonial settlement is also significant. Most
possessed excellent harbours and extensive fertile serritoria; all were on
the north and east coasts where they were well situated to take maximum
advantage of exports to the Italian mainland. By contrast no inland town
was selected for colonial settlement, Augustan advisers correctly assess-
ing that long-term chances of survival were not good. Many may well
have been in an advanced state of decay, such as Morgantina which
finally petered out in the Tiberian period. Others, such as Ietas (Monte
Tato), were beginning to decline around the same time; by the middle of
the first century, for example, the theatre there, last altered under
Augustus, had ceased to function, a fine peristyle house had collapsed
never to be rebuilt, the bouleuterion was walled up and disused, and
rubbish was gathering in the agora. Helorus and Soluntum at least,
possibly Acrae, and no doubt many others, were also in decline in the
early Empire. Even those inland towns that were favoured in the
Augustan settlement with municipal status did not enjoy long-term
prosperity: Halaesa, for example, where the hellenistic city centre was
never rebuilt under the Empire, went into decline, and the same is
possibly true at Segesta (where, however, less excavation has been
carried out).!9 The famous sanctuary of Venus at Eryx in Segesta’s
territorium had fallen into disrepair by A.D. 25, and although its
restoration was completed by Claudius the cult never regained the
popularity it enjoyed under the Republic.2° Centuripae alone of the
inland towns granted Latin rights by Augustus can be shown to be still
thriving at the time of the middle Empire, a prosperity no doubt won
from the famed fertility of her surrounding territory.

'8 Wilson 1988 (£ 196); 1990 (E 197) with full discussion of the evidence.
'9 Wilson 1985 (£ 194); 1990 (E 197) 143-59.
2 Tac. Aan. 1v.43; Suet. Claud. 25.5.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

440 13%. SICILY, SARDINIA, CORSICA

Little was done, therefore, by either Augustus or his successors, to
foster urbanization in the interior of Sicily. The decay of the old hill-
towns is hardly surprising, for life on a lofty and often waterless
mountain top (Ietas, for example, is 852m high) was neither comfortable
nor convenient, and made no sense once security ceased to bea factor in
determining the location of nucleated settlement. Urban decay in the
interior, however, did not represent depopulation in real terms, for it is
likely to have been matched by a corresponding growth in the prosperity
and importance of the sprawling agricultural settlements and market
centres, which had began to be established in the well-watered valleys
and along the trunk roads from the end of the third century B.c.
onwards. Sicily under the Empire was dotted with such settlements, the
fully fledged towns being far apart and mainly on or near the coast. This
was a land fully geared to maximum agricultural production. Africa and
Egypt were now more important producers and exporters in terms of
quantity, but that grain continued to be produced in Sicily on a huge
scale in the early Empire is not in doubt.?! Local and imperial coinage
advertises the symbol of Sicily (a Medusa head with /riskeles) with wheat
ears attached, and the potential political importance of the Sicilian corn
supply, highlighted by Sextus Pompeius’ manoeuvrings, was further
echoed by the pretender in Afria, Clodius Macer, in 68, who also featured
the symbol of Sicily with wheat-ears on his coin issues; similarly Sicily
takes her place beside Africa, Egypt and Spain ona mosaic of the middle
of the first century at Ostia symbolizing grain (and, in the case of Spain,
oil) producers.?? Sicilian wine was also famous. Mamertine from the
north east was the most respected, ‘the rival of the best Italian wine’
according to Strabo, and widely exported, to Rome, Africa and else-
where. Tauromenium wine, which was sometimes passed off for
Mamertine, is known at Pompeii, and vinum Mesopotamium from the
south coast is attested at Carthage (in 21 B.C.) as well as at Pompeii and as
far north as Vindonissa in Switzerland.23 Animal husbandry, especially
sheep, also made an important contribution to the agricultural economy,
wool being mentioned as a Sicilian export commodity by Strabo.
Among other exports were timber, especially from Mount Etna, black
basalt corn-mills from the same region, found in Italy and Africa as well

21 Gabba’s case for a considerable reduction in Sicilian grain production is not persuasive (Gabba
1986 (E 160) 79—80).

2 Coins: Sutherland and Kraay 1973 (B 359) no. 1088 (Panormus); RIC 1? (1984), 195 (Macer).
Mosaic: G. Becatti, Seavi di Ostia 1V, Rome, 1961, no. 68.

23: Mamertine: Strab. v1.2.3 (268-9¢), cf. Pliny, HN x1v.66 and 97; Vitr. De Arch. vitt.3.12; Mart.
xtu117; Athenaeus, 1.27d; Dioscorides, v.6.11. Africa: CIL vitt 22640.60. Tauromenium wine:
Pliny, HN xtv.66. Mesopotamian: CIL tv 2602-3 (Pompeii); M.H. Callender, Roman Amphorae
(Oxford, 1965) 37 (Vindonissa); AE 1893, 111 (Carthage). Other Sicilian vintages: Gal. X, 834-5;
Strab. v1.2.3 (268~9c), 6.7; x1t.4.11 (628c); Pliny, HN xiv.35 and 80; Poll. Onom. v1.16; Ath. 1.3 1b;
Ael. VH xit.31. On Sicilian wine production in general, Wilson 1990 (£ 197) 22~3, 191~2 and 263-4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SICILY, SARDINIA, CORSICA 44!

as all over Sicily, and sulphur from the Agrigentum hinterland, the
Roman world’s only major supplier.?4

About the pattern of land use and the farming economy we are largely
ignorant, in the absence of detailed archaeological investigation. That
Sicily continued to be an island where large estates were commonplace is
not in doubt: its fertility, its relative accessibility from Rome, and the
concession which enabled senators to travel there without special
permission, all combined to make the province an attractive area for land
investment. The interest of Italian privafi in Sicilian land, and the scale of
it (even allowing for literary hyperbole) is indicated by Ovid’s quip that
Sextus Pompeius (the senator of the first century A.D.) could claim Sicily
as his, so extensive were his properties there, and by the fictional
Trimalchio’s joke that a holding in Sicilian land would allow him to
travel to Africa via Sicily without leaving his own estates.25 The
sweeping generalizations of ancient commentators must, however, be
treated with reserve. A famous passage of Strabo, for example, describ-
ing how the whole of northern and western Sicily except Agrigentum
and Lilybaeum were ‘deserted’ — ‘the rest, as well as most of the interior,
has come into the possession of shepherds’? — has been taken as an
indication of a depressed rural Sicily with huge /atifundia dominated by
slave labour encompassing vast tracts of countryside. Yet there is
increasing evidence from western and south-western Sicily for a well-
populated countryside dotted with farms, villas and villages in early
imperial times,?? and the true pattern of land-use, here as elsewhere, is
likely to have been complex, with a variety of different-sized holdings in
any one area. Archaeology, of course, cannot tell us about the ownership
of such holdings, nor distinguish between tenant farmer and owner-
occupier, so that even a string of smallholdings might in theory be under
single rather than multiple ownership; but Strabo’s picture of a depopu-
lated rural Sicily is likely to be grossly exaggerated. Ranching alone was
in any case not a profitable way of using extensive tracts of land, and even
on large estates mixed farming was no doubt widely practised. More
archaeological documentation, however, is needed.

In the countryside the Romanizing influence detectable at the towns in
the early Empire hardly made itself felt. Buildings were still erected in
traditional Greek fashion, with mud-brick walls on stone foundations.”8
The Sicilian Greek calendar remained in use, as indicated by an
inscription of A.D. 35 from the rustic sanctuary of Anna and the Nymphs

2% Wool: Strab. v1.2.3 (268—-gc); 2.7 (224-$c). Timber: Strab. v1.2.8 (273—4c); cf. Diod. x1v.42.4,
and G. Manganaro, Cronache di Archeologia e Storia d Arte 3 (1964) 43—4, col. II, lines 25-6, 51-2
(export of wood from Tauromenium). Basalt: Strab. v1.2.3 (268—gc). Sulphur: E. De Miro, Koka/os
28-29 (1982-3) 320-5; Wilson 1990 ( 197) 238-9. 25 Ov. Pont iv.15.15; Petron. Sat. 48.

% Strab. vt.2.6 (272—-3¢). 27 Bejor 1975 (E 147); Bejor 1983 (E 148) 365-72.
2% Wilson 1985 (E 195).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

442 138. SICILY, SARDINIA, CORSICA

at Buscemi in south-east Sicily;2? and Greek remained the spoken
language, Latin inscriptions being rare. In the far west Punic influence
may have lingered on, as Apuleius in the second century described the
Sicilians as frilingues, the third language presumably being Punic; but
there are no neo-Punic inscriptions as there are in Sardinia and north
Africa at this period, and even in a Carthaginian foundation such as
Lilybaeum Greek was already deep-rooted by the time of the late
Republic (even if, as Cicero implies, it was not of the purest strain).30
Greek and Latin bilingualism was widespread in the towns, but even
there Greek roots died hard. Before the end of the second century, for
example, an honorific inscription was set up, in Greek, by the ‘council
and people of the glorious city of the Tauromenitans’, showing that by
then a colonia could set up an official dedication in Greek using
terminology which ignored the existence of a Roman charter.3! For all its
proximity to Italy, for all the influx of veteran colonists under Augustus,
for all the interest of Italians in land speculation there, Sicily retained a
pronounced Greek flavour down to the end of antiquity.

Sardinia and Corsica were culturally very distinct from Sicily. Greek
influence in both islands was negligible, but in Sardinia there was a
considerable legacy of Carthaginian culture in the principal cities of the
west coast, which had started life as Phoenician foundations. Both
islands received a generally bad press from Roman writers. Corsica
(Latin Cyrnus) was a wild land, its inhabitants wilder than animals
claimed Strabo; much more rugged than Sardinia, its only decent plains
are near the east coast. Although Diodorus mentions Corsican honey,
milk and meat, her sole significant asset was timber, Corsican pine and
box being especially prized.32 Sardinia was far more fertile, though less
so (and more mountainous) than Sicily, and was likewise a major corn
supplier of Italy at the time of the late Republic; herein lay her sole
olitical importance.33 Yet her inhabitants were not to be trusted
, >
banditry was rife, and the climate notoriously unhealthy. Strabo in
particular paints a gloomy picture of a land ‘plague-ridden in summer,
especially in the most fertile regions, which are continually laid waste by
mountain peoples’.*¥

29 Notizie degli Scavi 1920, 327-9. 30 Apul. Met. x1.5; Cic. Div. Caec. 12.39.

IG xiv 1091.

32 Inhabitants: Strab. v.2.7 (224-5c), contrast Diod. v.14.1. Produce: sbid. and v.13.4-5; cf. also
Livy, xL.34.12; xLU.7.2 and Pliny, HN xvi.71 (honey). Box: Pliny, ‘bid. Pine: Theophr. Hist. P/.
v.8.1. Corsican red mullet was also highly rated: Juv. v.gz.

33 Cic. De Imp. Cn. Pomp. 12.34: ‘tria frumentaria subsidia reipublicae’, the third being Africa.
Sardinian fertility: Polyb. 1.79.6; Varro, Rast. 1 Introd. 3; Strab. v.2.7 (224-5c); Luc. 11.65; Val.
Max. vi1.6.1 (‘Siciliamque et Sardiniam, benignissimas urbis nostrae nutrices’).

4 Strab. v.2.7 (224-$c), ef. Livy, xxit.34.11, Pompon. 11.123; Paus. x.17.11; Tac. Aan. 1.85.4.

Sardinian malaria: Brown 1984 (E 153) 225-30. Untrustworthiness: Festus, Gloss. Lat. 428L (‘Sardi
venales’), cf. Cic. Scaur. 38ff. Banditry: Varro, Rust. 1.16.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SICILY, SARDINIA, CORSICA 443

The importance of Sardinian grain to Italy is highlighted by the events
of 40-38 B.c. The cutting off of the Sicilian supply since 43 was bad
enough, but when both Corsica and Sardinia were occupied in Sextus
Pompeius’ name in 4o by his lieutenant Menas>5 and Sardinian corn also
blockaded, the starvation of Rome loomed, a political weapon that could
not be ignored. Hence the Misenum accord of 39 with Octavian, by
which Sextus Pompeius’ control of the three islands was duly recog-
nized, and Sicilian and Sardinian grain shipments to Rome resumed.
Early the next year, however, on the defection of Menas, Sardinia and
Corsica passed firmly under Octavian’s control.36

In the provincial reorganization of 27 B.c. Sardinia and Corsica were
reckoned peaceful enough to be made, like Sicily, a province of the
Roman people, administered as a single unit under a proconsular
governor. It proved a miscalculation. In a.p. 6 we hear of serious
restlessness among the peoples of the Sardinian interior and of piracy in
the Tyrrhenian sea.3” Troops were sent to the island, and both Sardinia
and Corsica passed to the emperor’s control; the organization of the
islands as two separate provinces, each probably administered by an
equestrian praefectus, almost certainly dates from now.*8 Despite military
rule trouble in Sardinia rumbled on. There was no concerted military
push to tame the province once and forall, and Strabo even suggests that
the malarial climate was a major factor in the failure to pursue a policy of
total conquest. The sending of 4,000 Jewish dissidents to Sardinia in A.D.
19, as raw recruits to help quell the still rebellious interior, with a clear
hint that they were expendable in case of disease, suggests continuing
problems in establishing a firm military stranglehold.>? To Rome this
was the hostile territory of Barbaria, and although its collective peoples
(civitates Barbariae) are recorded as paying homage on an inscription of
either Augustan or Tiberian date,“ a military garrison of auxiliary units
was needed to keep a watchful eye on the interior for much of the first
century.

By 67 Nero thought Sardinia quiet enough to be handed back to

35 So all sources (and apparently CL x 8034) except Appian, who calls him Menodorus: see BC.
v.56 with Gabba 1970 (B 55) ad loc.

% App. BCiv. tv.2; v.56, 67, 72, 78-80; Dio xLviit.28.4; 30.73 1.2; 36.1-6; 45.4-9; Plut. Aas. 32.

37 Dio Litt.12.4 (27 B.C.); Lv.28.1-2 (A.D. 6), cf. Livy, xb.3 4.13.

* Pracfectus Corsicae. CIL x11 2455 (Julio-Claudian); praefectus Sardiniae: EE vit 744 (A.D. 46);
AE 1893, 47. 1 take T. Pompeius Proculus on an Augustan milestone (ILS 105) to be governor; he
appears as pro legato (se. pratfectus?), perhaps in acknowledgment of legionaries in his command (so
Meloni 1958 (E 174) 11-17). Others, however (J. Sa8el, Chiron 10 (1974) 467-72; Thomasson 1972 (E
190)), take pro legato and praefectus Corsicae to be subordinates of a single governor of Sardinia-
Corsica, the split in administration not occurring until 67. Cf. also RE xxit 2 (1954) 1291-2.

% Strab. v.2.7 (224-5c). A.D. 19: Tac. Ann 1.85.4 (with Goodyear ad /oc.), cf. Suet. Tib. 36 and
Dio tv11.18.5a.

AE 1921, 86= Sotgiu 1961 (B 286) no. 188; not necessarily post-19, pace Meloni 1958 (E 174)
15-17.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Pr Land over 1,000 metres

@ = Major towns
e Minor settlement
° Modern find-spot

Map 5. Sardinia and Corsica.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SICILY, SARDINIA, CORSICA 445

senatorial control, the province being given to the Senate as a consola-
tion prize when the cities of Achaea were granted freedom and immunity
from taxation.*! Corsica, however, remained separately administered,
since the Decimus Pinarius, procurator Corsicae, who tried unsuccessfully
to win that island over to Vitellius’ cause during the upheavals of 69 (he
was murdered in his bath for his efforts), was clearly the governor, the
title praefectus having by a.D. 56 given way to that of procurator, as
elsewhere.*? Once again the inclusion of Sardinia among the provinces
of the Roman people proved premature. A revealing insight into one
aspect of the continuing unrest is provided by a bronze tablet of A.D. 69
from Esterzili in central Sardinia, which documents not only the long-
standing problem of mountain tribes (here the Galillenses) trespassing
on richer plains further south (in this case those of the Patulcenses
Campani, presumably descendants of Italian immigrants whose boun-
daries, the document tells us, had been fixed by Metellus some 180 years
before), but also the failure of successive proconsuls of Sardinia to grasp
the nettle and resolve the problem in decisive fashion; and the references
in the inscription to ‘rebellion’ (seditio) and to occupation by force (quos
per vim occupaverunt) suggest that the recent trouble was not minor but a
sudden and violent uprising.*3 By 73 Vespasian had lost patience. The
troops returned, and the province came under imperial control once
more, the governor being now styled a procurator et praefectus (a title
which combined old- and new-style designations). Corsica remained
separate, under a procuratorial governor.“

With both islands so unsettled it is hardly surprising that the progress
of Romanization was slow. Corsica in particular remained largely un-
developed throughout antiquity, and we can sympathize with Seneca’s
gloom about what he saw as a dismal place of exile.45 Co/oniae had been
founded at Mariana by Marius and at Aléria by Sulla, but there was no
later attempt to foster urbanization, and Pliny mentions only these two
settlements by name in his account of the island. At Mariana excavations
have revealed only late Roman structures, apart from some first- and
second-century burials, but at Aléria more extensive work has unco-
vered the forum and several adjacent houses. The forum with its

“| Paus. vit.17.3; Suet. Ner. 24.

Tac. Hist. 11.16 (with Chilver ad Joc). The title had changed before 56: Vipsanius Laenas, the
procurator of Sardinia condemned for extortion in that year (Tac. Aan. xi11.30.1), was clearly the
governor.

“3 Pace Rowland 1985 (£ 185) 110 and Dyson 1985 (£ 157) 258. The inscription is ILS 5947.

Sardinia: CIL x 8023-4 (A.D. 74). Corsica: CIL x 8038 (a.p. 72).

45 Sen. Dial. xu1.6.5; 7.8—10. Sardinia, too, was used to exiles: Anicetus, C. Cassius Longinus and
Crispinus were banished there by Nero (Tac. Aan. xtv.62.6, xv1.9.2 and 17.2).

“© Pliny, HN 111.80; Moracchini-Mazel 1971 (@ 177) and 1974 (@ 178) (Mariana); for Aléria,
Jéhasse and Jéhasse 1982 (2 166), but I have not followed their chronology, which is too high. On
the dating of double-precinct fore, Todd 1985 (F $95) 64.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

446 135. SICILY, SARDINIA, CORSICA

surrounding porticoes is of the double-enclosure type with a Capitolium
in the centre and a temple of Rome and Augustus at the east end; in its
developed form such a layout is hardly likely to be pre-Flavian, but
reticulate masonry in a monumental arch and in shops on the forum’s
north side may indicate an earlier (Augustan or Julio-Claudian) phase of
building. The amphitheatre, a modest structure on a tiny scale for a
provincial capital (its long axis measures only 29.Gom), reflects the
undeveloped nature of Roman urbanization in Corsica.4? The interior of
the island remained largely untamed. There was a permanent garrison at
Praesidium, and piracy was suppressed by a detachment of the Misenum
fleet in the lagoon at Portus Dianae, just north of Aléria. In the
mountains Ptolemy lists fourteen oppida, but these are unlikely to have
been developed cities of classical Mediterranean type: excavation on Cap
Corse at Castellu de Luri, surely Ptolemy’s Lurinum in the territory of
the Vanacini, has revealed stout stone fortifications and simple rectangu-
lar structures within them, recalling the type of Gaulish oppidum well
known from examples such as Ambrussum and Les Castels de Nages
near Nimes.48 Occupation at Castellu de Luri, which started in the third
century B.C., continued throughout the first century A.D. Yet for all the
apparent lack of sophistication in at least one of their oppida, the
Vanacini, who had received unspecified beneficia from Augustus, pos-
sessed the trappings of the imperial cult with sacerdotes Augusti (Lasemo
son of Leucanus, and Eunus son of Tomasus, men clearly lacking the
Roman citizenship): this we know froma rescript of A.D. 72 addressed by
Vespasian to the ‘magistrates and senators’ of the Vanacini, concerning a
border squabble with their neighbour, Mariana, to the south.*9
Sardinia in time became more developed. Many of the cities on the
western seaboard retained a distinctly Punic flavour down to the late
Republic, with neo-Punic inscriptions and suffetes as magistrates. The
first Roman colonia was Turris Libysonis (Porto Torres), founded for
proletarians, probably ¢. 42-40 B.c., on a virgin site in north-west
Sardinia, and by Augustus’ time Carales (Cagliari) possessed municipal
rank: so at least implies Pliny, who was drawing on an Augustan source,
but Uselis too must have had municipal rights early on, as ‘Iulia Augusta’
were among her titles when she was promoted to colonial status by the
middle of the second century.5° When Carales became a municipium is not
known for certain, but it is just possible that it may have been shortly
before 44 8.c., for she had remained loyal to Caesar when the rest of
Sardinia embraced the Pompeian cause, and her magistrates were

“7 Gallia 54 (1976) 303-53 36 (1978) 463; 40 (1982) 430-3.

8 Prolemy (Geog. 111.2) and Corsica: Jéhasse 1976 (E 164). Luri: Gallia 34 (1976) $07; 36 (1978)
468. Ambrussum: Fiches 1982 (£ 351), 1986 (E 353). Castels: Py (E 466) 1978.

49 CIL x 8038. © Pliny, HN 111.85; cf. Brunt 1971 (A 9) 597, 605.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SICILY, SARDINIA, CORSICA 447

quattuorviri, not the duoviri customary in Augustan municipia.*! In any
case Augustus showed little interest in fostering urban development in
Sardinia; unlike Sicily the island was passed over as a candidate for
veteran settlement.5? Slowly Latin rights were extended to other
communities, including Nora, Sulcis and Cornus, probably before the
end of the first century A.D.; interestingly their constitutions were
modelled on that of Carales and so had guattuorviri rather than duoviri.3
But there is scant evidence, epigraphic or archaeological, for major
public building programmes in either Augustan or Julio-Claudian
Sardinia,*4 and it was only in the second century that the towns of the
province began to display more tangible signs of material prosperity,
constructing aqueducts, bath-buildings and the like. During the first
century, however, the communications network was upgraded and
improved, especially the main north-south artery between Turris
Libysonis and Carales; milestones document activity in A.D. 13/14, 46,
67/8, 69 and 74.55

Sardinia’s economic importance lay of course, as already noted, in
grain. Always less productive than Sicily, she too declined in importance
as a wheat exporter when Africa and Egypt took over in the early Empire
as central Italy’s most important suppliers; but as in Sicily there is no hint
of a decline in Sardinian agriculture, or any suggestion that cereal
production-levels did not remain high. About the details of the agricul-
tural economy of the early Empire we are ignorant, as in Sicily, in the
absence of excavated villas of the right date or of reliable field-survey
evidence; the notion of ubiquitous /atifundia, often repeated by modern
commentators, is doubtless as over-simplistic for Sardinia as it is for
Sicily. Metals too were not ignored. The mining district of the Iglesiente,
centred at Metalla (‘Mines’), produced lead, iron and copper; a stamped
lead ingot documents Augustan production.5¢

Away from the coastal regions and the main towns, Romanization
made little impact under Augustus or the Julio-Claudians. Sard

51 Meloni 1975 (E 175) 209. Quattuorviri: ILS 1402, 6763; CIL x 7600, 7605.

52 Jt is omitted in the list in RG 28.

53, Sotgiu 1961 (B 286) no. 45 (Nora); Sotgiu 1961 (B 286) no. 3, ILS 6764, and CIL x 75 19 (Sulcis).
For Cornus, Meloni 1973 (£ 175) 242. Carales, if it remained provincial capital, was doubtless later
made a colonia (cf. AE 1982, 423); Olbia is a likely candidate for at least municipal rank. On the rarity
of guattuorviri in provincial municipia under the Empire, A. Degrassi, Seritti vari di anticbita t (1962)
1soff, Iv (1971) 79.

54 Exceptions include ambulationes at Carales before a.p. 6 (CIL x 7581), a Neronian temple of
Ceres at Olbia (Sotgiu 1961 (B 286) no. 309), and probably the theatre at Nora (on its date Wilson
1980-1 (E 193) 222,n. 7). The Porto Torres baths are not late first century B.c., pace Maetzke 1966 (E
168) 162, as the axial type is not pre-Neronian in Rome; a brick-built provincial example on an
imposing scale such as this is hardly pre-100 (cf. Boninu, Le Glay and Mastino 1984 (E 151) 13-18).
On the cities in general, Tronchetti 1984 (E 191). 55 Meloni 1975 (E 175) 268 with references.

86 Grain: Rickman 1980 (E 109) 106-7; Rowland 1984 (e 183). Countryside in general: Rowland
1984 (E 184). Mines: Meloni 1975 (£175) 157-61. Iron: Dio xxt1.56.3 (46 B.c.). Ingot: CIL x 8073.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

448 135. SICILY, SARDINIA, CORSICA

remained the everyday language of the mountainous interior, and
although it was something for the dedicators of a building near Zeppara
to have erected in A.D. 62a tablet inscribed in Latin, their names (Mislius,
Benets, Bacoru, Sabdaga) are wholly un-Roman.®’ A significant propor-
tion of the nuraghic village settlements continued to be inhabited down
into imperial times. Religion, not surprisingly, remained conservative,
and Punic cults in particular continued to flourish, often with the
thinnest of Roman veneers. The cult centre at Antas of the deity
Latinized as Sardus Pater (formerly worshipped as Sid Baby) enjoyed a
long and faithful following throughout the Republic and early Empire,
but it was only in the early third century that his temple took on
recognizably Roman form (tetrastyle and prostyle, raised on a podium)
in the Ionic order; while shrines elsewhere, including Mulciberus
(Vulcan) at Nora, Tanit disguised as Demeter-Ceres at Tharros and
Narcao, and Bes-Eshmun at Bitia, all show survival well into the
imperial period.*® The unicipia, of course, adopted the outward form of
a Roman constitution, but elsewhere both Punic language and Punic
nomenclature continued in use. Striking confirmation of this is provided
by a second-century a.D. neo-Punic inscription from Bitia, which
demonstrates that in a non-chartered community in Sardinia the old
Punic administrative system of local government remained intact well
into imperial times, with suffetes as chief magistrates.5°

57 AE 1907, 119 = Sotgiu 1961 (B 286) no. 177.

58 Acquaro ¢f al. 1969 (E 143) (Antas); Meloni 1975 (E 175) 231, 325 and 338.
59 Guzzo Amadasi 1967 (£ 162) 133-6.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 13¢

SPAIN

G. ALFOLDY

I. CONQUEST, PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION
AND MILITARY ORGANIZATION

The Iberian peninsula, the first overseas country in which Roman rule
had been established (in 218 B.c.), became one of the most important
areas of the empire at the beginning of the imperial period.! This was due
above all to the fact that the wars of conquest gave it an increasingly
important military and political role. At the end of the Republic and
during the triumviral period, when nearly two centuries of almost
constant warfare had passed, and Roman civilization had struck root
particularly along the eastern coast and in the south of the peninsula,
north-western Spain, with its hardly accessible mountainous regions,
still resisted Roman rule. From 39 B.c., there was a single proconsul with
consular rank for both Hispanic provinces, Hispania Citerior and
Hispania Ulterior (the ‘consular era’ of Hispania Citerior was later
reckoned from 38 B.c.); he held the army command and was responsible
for the civil administration under the mandate of Octavian/Augustus.
Until the time of the last proconsul, Sextus Appuleius in 28/27 B.c., these
governors were constantly occupied with war — in the Fasti Triumphales
six triumphs are recorded for proconsuls of this period. But it was the
first princeps who completed the task of subduing the rest of the
peninsula, with the aim of seizing the chance to demonstrate his care for
his provincia, to win laurels, and at the same time to be absent from Rome

* This chapter was written in 1987 and revised in 1988. In 1991 the author requested some
supplements and changes. It was unfortunately not possible to include these and the editors bear the
responsibility for the fact that this does not reflect the current state of research. It can be noted, at
least, that cwo parts of CIL tt? were published in 1995: CIL 12/14, part 1 (southern part of the
Conventus Tarraconensis) and 1127/7 (Conventus Cordubensis), edited by A. Alféldy, A. U. Stylow ef
al. For local mints see Burnett ef a/. 1992 (B 312). For the history and archaeology of the Iberian
peninsula, see particularly L. A. Churchin, Rowan Spain. Conquest and Assimilation (London~New
York, 1991), W. Trillmich ef a/., Hispania antiqua. Denkmaler der Romerzeit (Mainz am Rhein, 1993).

' The literary sources for Roman Spain are edited by A. Schulten ef a/., Fontes Hispaniae -\ntiquae
1-1x (Barcelona, 1922-47). The number of Roman inscriptions known from the Iberian peninsula
has increased during the fast hundred years from some 6,000, published in volume 11 of the Corpus
Inscriptionum Latinarum by E. Hubner, to some 20,000. These include important new documents,
such as the Tabula Siarensis, a new version of the Tabula Hebana (AE 1984, 508, sec, above all,

449

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BALEARES |
100 miles

Barcino

Ad Fines ©
Tarraco
~
ES Land over 1,000 metres

Dianium

jaguntum
Pp

<7) a, Of S
|
2} Lauro
Carthago Nova

Valentia gy
Jdcar (Sucre
© Libisosa

VY
y
Map 6. Spain.

ANS

> Sal

ulo,

7”,
N

ANTABRI
) Hliturgio *

Corduba
TL

5 SZ
Metellinum
I

Lucus Augusti
7
ASTURES
Asturios”
Augusta
Petévonium °

af/

Emerita
Augusta
~

J TURDETAN

CALLAECI
o.
I)
~
Paxo
lulia
f

W.D. Lebek, ZPE 66 (1986) 31-48) and the Lex Irnitana (cf. below with no. 20). The edition of a
new Corpus containing all inscriptions (CIL 12) is being prepared under the direction of G.
Alféldy, M. Mayer and A.U. Stylow. For local mints, the standard work is presently A. Vives y
Escudero, La sroneda hispdnica, 1-1v, (Madrid, 1924-6) repr. (in two vols.) Madrid, 1980. The
abundant archaeological sources, considerably augmented by intensified excavation throughout
Spain and Portugal during the last two decades, are too numerous to survey here. For the
archaeological and historical topography, cf. Tovar 1974-6 (E 243), Keay 1988 (£ 227). A new
synthesis of the history of Roman Spain (somewhat antiquarian in concept and not free of error) is
provided by J.M. Blazquez ef a/. 1982 (E 210).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONQUEST 451

where his presence, after the provisional settlement of the new regime,
might raise political problems.

In the spring or the summer of 27 B.c. Augustus went to Gaul and
thence to Spain. At Tarraco (Tarragona), the new capital of Hispania
Citerior, which had replaced the republican capital of Carthago Nova
(Cartagena), he entered his eighth and ninth consulships on 1 January 26
and 25 B.C., respectively, and received embassies. Tarraco was thus fora
short period the scene of political decisions of the highest importance
and thus the centre of power. The attention of the Roman world turned
to Spain, where in 26 B.c. the princeps personally led the campaign against
the Cantabri in the mountains between Burgos and Santander. During
the second campaign in 25 B.c., in Asturia and Callaecia, west of
Cantabria, he lay ill at Tarraco. In the last months of 25 B.c., after he
had left Spain for Rome, his legates completed the conquest, subduing
the last insurrections. Resistance was definitively broken by Agrippa in
19 B.C.

The successful wars which made it necessary to concentrate six or
more legions and numerous auxiliary units here, and, above all the
presence of Augustus for two years and the administrative work which
brought him there again for a period between 16 and 13 B.c., clearly
emphasized the importance of Spain in the Roman empire. It is
symptomatic of its importance that during the early Principate a large
number of Spanish communities enjoyed the patronage of leading
senators at Rome and even of members of the imperial family.? In
continuation of a republican tradition, social and political contact with
Spain was a highly esteemed source of prestige and influence.

Augustus established in the Iberian peninsula, as elsewhere, a system
of provincial administration which was to undergo only a few modifica-
tions during the following three centuries.3 From 27 B.c., the representa-
tives of the princeps in the governance of Spain and particularly in
command of the armies were the /egati Axgusti pro praetore, one in
Hispania Citerior and another in Hispania Ulterior. The first legates
were Gaius Antistius Vetus (27—25/24 B.C.) in the former and Publius
Carisius (27~-c. 22 B.C.) in the latter province. Definitive form was given
to the new system about 13 B.c., but not by any single reform. Not only
were provincial boundaries changed, but Hispania Ulterior was divided
into two provinces, and Roman Spain consisted, for the next three
centuries and more, of the Hispaniae tres, that is, of the provinces of
Baetica, Lusitania and Hispania Citerior.

The province of Baetica, formerly a part of Hispania Ulterior and also
known as Hispania Ulterior Baetica until the early second century,

2 Cf. M. Koch, Chiron 9 (1979) 205-14, on M. Agrippa.
3 See Albertini 1923 (E 198) 25-42; AlfGldy 1969 (E 201) above all 285-96.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

452 13¢. SPAIN

comprised Andalusia, minus the eastern part of the region which
belonged to Hispania Citerior. While both other provinces remained
under imperial control, Baetica, with Corduba (Cordoba) as its capital,
was a public province. The governor was a proconsul with the rank of a
senior ex-praetor, appointed to his office annually by the procedure of
sortitio by the Senate. In carrying out his administrative tasks he was
supported by the /egatus pro praetore, who was a junior ex-praetor or
younger senator chosen by the proconsul, and by the guaestor responsible
for dealing with the taxes paid by the provincial communities. Lusitania,
that is Portugal minus the northern sector of the country, but including
the Spanish Estremaduraand the region of Salamanca in the western part
of Castilla la Vieja, had Emerita Augusta (Mérida) as its capital, and was
under the control of a /egatus Augusti pro praetore, a senior ex-praetor. The
recently occupied region of Asturia et Callaecia (including northern
Portugal), hitherto a part of Hispania Ulterior, was separated from the
demilitarized Lusitania and joined to Hispania Citerior, which remained
the only province in the Iberian peninsula which had a legionary
garrison. This province, the largest one in the empire, comprised the
eastern coast of Spain down to Almeria, the eastern sector of Andalusia
and most of the interior of Spain together with the northern and north-
western areas of the peninsula. The governor of this highly important
province, residing at Tarraco, was a senior ex-consul, normally dis-
tinguished both by birth and by a successful public career: at any rate,
unlike the governors of Baetica and Lusitania, he was a person from the
top stratum of the aristocracy of the imperial period. In the dispensation
of justice he was supported by a praetorian senator (who, in the first
century A.D., was called /egatus Axugusti, later also iuridicus). The governor
also had under him as office-holders of senatorial rank the legates of the
legions of his province. In the later years of Augustus and at the
beginning of the reign of Tiberius, as we can deduce from Strabo’s
account of the administrative system in Spain and from an inscription,
two of the three legions, certainly brigaded together in one fortress, were
subordinated to a single legate.

A further new element of the provincial administration was the
subdivision of the provinces into conventus iuridici for the purpose of
jurisdiction, as well as for the administration of the imperial cult. In
Hispania Citerior there were seven conventus, those of Tarraco, Carthago
Nova, Caesaraugusta (Zaragoza), Clunia (Pefialba de Castro), Asturica
Augusta (Astorga), Lucus Augusti (Lugo) and Bracara Augusta (Braga);
in Baetica, four — Corduba, Astigi (Ecija), Hispalis (Sevilla) and Gades
(Cadiz); in Lusitania, three - Emerita Augusta, Pax Iulia (Beja) and

4 Strab. 1.4.20 (166c); CIL 1x 4133 = ILS 2644. On Strabo’s account of Spain, cf. J.M. Blazquez,
Hispania Antiqua 1 (1971) 11-94.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONQUEST 453

Scallabis (Santarém). While some scholars assign the establishment of
these conventus to Vespasian, the system described certainly goes back to
Augustus at least in an earlier form and is attested by a tabula patronatus
from the year A.D. 1.5 Lack of evidence is not necessarily a sign of lack of
organization. Whereas imperial procurators for the financial administ-
ration of Hispania Citerior and of Lusitania, who would hold the rank of
a ducenarius under the system as it was later consolidated, are already
attested in the reign of Augustus, the first known procurator of Baetica
(who, it is true, was responsible only for the imperial revenues from this
senatorial province, not for the taxes of the communities) belongs to the
reign of Vespasian; but this does not mean that the foundation of this
post may not go back to an earlier period, the reign of Augustus being
the most obvious possibility.

According to Strabo, the main task of the procurators in Spain was to
supply the army.® At the beginning of the Principate Spain was one of the
most important military areas of the empire. In the wars of the conquest
of north-western Spain at least six legions participated, namely the
legiones I, II (Augusta), IV (Macedonica), V (Alaudae), VI (Victrix) and X
(Gemina), all clearly attested by epigraphic and numismatic sources.
Thus, for example, we know that veterans were settled at Emerita
Augusta, in 25 B.c., from the /egiones V and X; at Caesaraugusta,
probably between 16 and 13 B.c., from the /egiones IV, VI and X; and at
Acci (Guadix), clearly at the beginning of the Principate, from the /egiones
I and II. But there is some evidence which allows us to conclude that in
the early years of the Augustan Principate /egio LX (Hispana) and legio XX
(Valeria Victrix) also formed part of the Spanish armies.

After the conquest had been completed, Augustus decided to leave
three legions to hold the Iberian peninsula, concentrating them in the
reorganized Hispania Citerior. The disposition of these legions, which
from the reign of Tiberius lay in a bow-shaped formation in the north-
western part of the high plain of Castilla la Vieja, facing the Cantabrian
and Asturian mountains, clearly demonstrates that the main task of the
army in the early Principate was to control the recently subjected areas.
Legio IV Macedonica was stationed in the Pisuerga valley, which allows
entry into the Cantabrian Cordillera from the direction of Palencia to the
south; a long series of boundary-stones (termini Augustales) found in this
area shows the boundaries between the prata /eg(ionis) IIIT on the one
side and the ager of the towns of Iuliobriga (Retortillo) in the north and
Segisamo (Sasam6n) in the south, respectively. Legio VI Victrix and /egio
X Gemina, whose first common fortress has not been identified, lay in

$ M.D. Dopico Cainzos, Gerién 4 (1986) 265-83; cf. AE 1984, 553.

6 Strab. 111.4.20 (167¢). On the Roman army in Spain, see now, above all, Le Roux 1982 (£ 228),
cf. Alf6ldy 1987 (D 159) 482-513.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

454 13¢. SPAIN

Asturia; later VI Wictrix may have had its headquarters at Legio (Leén),
which was the fortress of the gio WII Gemina from the reign of
Vespasian until late antiquity, while X Gemina can be located at
Petavonium (Rosinos de Vidriales). In the same area the bulk of the
auxilia of the exercitus Hispanicus also seems to have been stationed,
including cohors IV Gallorum in a fort on the road between Asturica
Augusta and Petavonium, near La Bafieza, where we know of a series of
the termini pratorum coh(ortis) IIII Gall(lorum), erected under Claudius.’

The concentration in north-western Spain of all these troops, particu-
larly of the legions recruited in Italy and, in increasing measure, from the
inhabitants of Spanish coloniae and municipia as well, prevented armed
resistance on a large scale, although there was still some fighting under
Nero against smaller gangs of highland robbers who disrupted the
country.8 This concentration also contributed considerably to the
Romanization of the tribes thus controlled. In approximately the third
generation after the conquest of north-eastern Spain, a reduction of the
military forces could begin. In 39, or at the latest in 43, /egio IV
Macedonica \eft Spain for the Rhine frontier; in 63 /egio X Gemina was
ordered to the Pannonian frontier. Only /egio VI Victrix remained in
Spain, together with some auxiliary units. The number of the auxilia was
of course also reduced after the reign of Augustus along with that of the
legions.°

One of the tasks of the army was to engage in the construction of
public works, primarily a road system. During his second stay in Spain,
between 16 and 13 B.c., Augustus initiated the systematic establishment
of a road network. The Via Augusta, which led from the Coll de Perthus
in the Pyrenees along the eastern coast of Spain to Tarraco and Valentia
(Valencia), and from here through the south of the peninsula, passing
Corduba, to Gades, was constructed at least partially under Augustus,
and was marked by milestones in the following years, in Baetica, for
example, in 2 B.c. This road which, according to Strabo, was of cardinal
importance, was still called via militaris in Domitian’s time, as were some
other main roads of the empire.!0 The road network in north-eastern
Spain was certainly constructed with the participation of the army. The
building-stones of the Roman bridge at Ad Fines (Martorell), near
Barcino (Barcelona), built probably between 16 and 13 B.c., show the
abbreviated names of the legions IV, VI and X, as do the milestones in

7 Cf. Le Roux 1982 (E 228) 107-18, with the list of the inscriptions attesting the prata (pasture-
lands) of degio IV Macedonica and cobors IV Gallorum.

8 CIL xr 395 = ILS 2648: [p(rimo) p(ilo)] leg(ionis) VI victr(icis), donis dondto ob res prosper(e) gest(as)
contra Astures (c. A.D. Go or some years before). 9 Cf. Le Roux 1982 (E 228) 85-93.

10 Strab. 11.4.9 (160c); P. Silliéres, REA 83 (1981) 255-71. On the Via Augusta which was,
unlike its predecessor, the republican Via Domitia, more a system of roads than a single road, cf. F.
Palli Aguilera, La via Augusta en Cataluna, Bellaterra, 1985.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

URBANIZATION 455

the region of Caesaraugusta, set up in 9 and 5 B.c. respectively.!! Several
other roads, known from the I¢ineraria, milestones and archaeological
discoveries, demonstrate clearly that the network of the viae publicae
extended through the whole peninsula. There were, for example, two
principal diagonal roads from the north west to the south east and from
the south west to the north east which intersected exactly in the
geographical centre of the peninsula, at Titulcia (in the area of the
present Titulcia, formerly Bayona de Tajufia, south of Madrid). In the
west, the main Roman road was that from Asturica Augusta to Emerita
Augusta and from here to Hispalis, the so-called Camino de la Plata,
where the earliest milestone belongs to the reign of Augustus.!?

II. URBANIZATION

Conquest, pacification, reorganization of the provincial government and
the road network were only a part of the Augustan achievement in
Hispania. Because of its enormous impact on the political system, social
order, economy and cultural development, urbanization, that is, the
foundation of coloniae and the grant of municipal status to native
communities, was one of the most effective elements in the policy of the
first princeps towards Spain. Although urban life had a long tradition in
the Iberian peninsula, with the existence of Phoenician and Greek
colonies and the urban development of some native settlements, Roman
urbanization did not reach a high level there until the last decades of the
Republic. Until the 4os of the first century B.c., if we exclude communi-
ties whose status is still debated, we have evidence of only some towns
which either certainly or probably possessed the Latin right, such as
Carteia (Cortijo El Rocadillo near Gibraltar, later a municipium) or
Valentia, and for some towns suchas Tarraco and Carthago Nova,which
seem to have had the status of a conventus civium Romanorum.'3 The
changes which occurred after the last years of Caesar and above all
during the reign of Augustus, may be illustrated by the list of towns
given by Pliny the Elder, who relied mainly on a source from the middle
period of the Augustan Principate (before 12 B.c.). Besides a large
number of communities without a privileged status, Pliny enumerates in

‘1G, Fabre, M. Mayer and I. Roda, Inscriptions romaines de Catalogne 1, Barcelone (sauf Barcino)
(Paris, 1984) no. 1; C. Castillo, J. Gomez-Pantoja and M.D. Mauleon, Inscripciones romanas del Museo
de Navarra(Pamplona, 1981) no. 1; ‘bid. no. 2 = G. Fatas and M.A. Martin Bueno, Epigrafia romana de
Zaragoza y su provincia (Zaragoza, 1977) no. 11; ibid. no. rg cf. AE 1984, 583-5. On the road system in
Roman Hispania, cf. Roldan Hervas 1975 (€ 236).

12 J.M. Roldan Hervas, Iter ab Emerita Asturicam. El Camino de la Plata (Salamanca, 1971) 51 no.
25.
3 On urbanization in Roman Spain, see, above all, Galsterer 1971 (& 221); Wiegels 1985 (E 245);
Alfdldv 1987 (E 205).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

456 13¢. SPAIN

Baetica nine coloniae, ten municipia civium Romanorum and twenty-seven
towns with the ‘old’ Latin right (by which he means Latin status granted
before the general extension of the ‘#s La#ii in Spain by Vespasian); in
Hispania Citerior (together with the Balearic Islands) twelve coloniae,
fifteen municipia civium Romanorum and twenty communities which were
apparently without exception Lassni veteres, and in Lusitania five coloniae,
one municipium civium Romanorum and three communities with the ‘old’
Latin status.!4 These numbers, however, do not at all represent the full
extent of urbanization in Spain before the end of the Augustan
Principate (not to mention the number of privileged towns from the
Flavian period). Several towns received their urban charter in the last
decades of the reign of Augustus, and are thus not registered in Pliny’s
lists, which are earlier in origin. Thus, for example, the inhabitants of
Segobriga (near to Saelices, 100 km south east of Madrid), one of the
most important centres of the Celtiberi, were according to Pliny
Stipendiarii, that is, they formed a peregrine community; from epigraphi-
cal documentation, however, we can deduce that Segobriga had already
obtained the status of a municipium, administered by I] IIviri and aediles,
by A.D. 12/14.15

Unfortunately, our sources, in particular Pliny’s lists of cities, the
inscriptions and the local coinage of several towns, do not allow us to
establish an exact list of the co/oniae and municipia founded by Augustus.
The evidence is not clear enough. The communities whose citizens are
enrolled in the Galeria tribus belong, it is true, to an earlier phase of
urbanization than the towns with the Quirina tribus, founded by the
Flavian emperors; but although the citizens of most towns which
received their privileged status from Augustus were inscribed in the
Galeria tribus, this tribal affiliation certainly does not always indicate an
Augustan grant of urban autonomy, and by the same token at least some
of the Augustan colonies did not have their citizens enrolled in this tribe.
Nevertheless, the general trends and the enormous importance of the
Augustan policy of urbanization in Spain are clear. First of all in Baetica,
in the eastern parts of Hispania Citerior and in the southern half of
Lusitania, the first princeps founded several Roman colonies and granted
the status of a municipium with either Roman or Latin rights to numerous
native communities. As is indicated by the case of Segobriga, but also,
for example, by that of Ercavica (Castro de Santaver near to Cafiaverue-
las, north of Segobriga) or Valeria (now Valeria, formerly Valera de
Arriba, east of Segobriga), municipalization also began in the interior of
the peninsula in the early Principate.

4 Pliny, HN 1.7, 01.18, 01.77-8, IV.117.

15 CIL 11 3103-4 (aed., a.v. 12/14); CIL 11 381* (certainly authentic, aed. IIT vir). CE. Alféldy 1987
(E 205) 77-80.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

URBANIZATION 457

Of the nine co/oniae of Baetica attested by Pliny (in his lists he actually
mentions ten coloniae, but one of them, Munda, must have been
completely destroyed in 45 B.c.), some received their status either
directly from Caesar or — like Urso (Osuna) — immediately after the death
of the dictator, but on his instructions. Under either Caesar or his heir
Itucci (near to Baena) and Ucubi (Espejo), were founded. Augustus
founded the colonies of Astigi (Ecija) and Tucci (Martos) and changed
the status of Corduba and Asido (Medina Sidonia) into that of a Roman
colonia. Of the five colonies of Lusitania, only Emerita Augusta is
certainly an Augustan foundation; Metellinum (Medellin), Norba
(Caceres), Pax Iulia and Scallabis were founded either under Caesar or
during the period before 27 B.c. Among the colonies of Hispania
Citerior, Carthago Nova seems to be a Caesarian colonia and Celsa (Velilla
del Ebro) was a colonia of Lepidus (founded perhaps in 48/47 B.c.). Either
in the last years of Caesar or in the subsequent period before 27 B.c. the
new capital, whose full name was Colonia Iulia Urbs Triumphalis
Tarraco, and Acci (Guadix) were founded. Colonies of Augustus
founded after 27 B.c. were Barcino (Barcelona), Caesaraugusta, Ilici
(Elche), Libisosa (Lezuza) and probably also Salaria (near to Ubeda).'6

Considerably less clear is the number of the Augustan municipia. The
earliest Spanish municipia with a certainly attested date are Caesarian
foundations, such as Asido and Gades. Unfortunately, for only a few of
the Spanish cities with this status can an Augustan origin be suggested
with a sufficient basis of evidence, like the Municipium Augusta Bilbilis,
for example, the native town of Martial. But there is no doubt that
several of the Spanish municipia which received their privileged status
before the death of the first princeps were Augustan foundations, as were
a large number of other towns with the Galeria tribus which can be
considered as municipia."!

The extent of this urbanizing programme in Spain at the end of the
Republic and under Augustus can be contrasted with the fact that the
Julio-Claudian emperors did not consider it necessary to extend colonial
and municipal status to other communities of the Iberian peninsula on a
large scale. One of the few municipia, or indeed the only manicipium
(unless it was simply a city with elevated status), founded during the
period from Tiberius to Nero may have been Baelo (Bolonia) on the
Atlantic coast of Baetica, attested as municipium Claudium.'® Clunia,
which was a municipium from the time of Augustus or Tiberius,
obviously obtained the rank of a colonia from Galba, who was in this
town when he received the news of his proclamation as emperor by the

'6 A list of the coloniae in Spain: Brunt 1971 (A 9) §90-3-
7 Cf. Alféldy 1987 (£ 205) 53-4 and 104-5; cf. also the lists and maps in Wiegels 1985 (£ 245)
164-8. 18 AE 1971, 172; cf. Wiegels 1985 (B 245) 20-2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

458 13¢. SPAIN

Senate of Rome. It was the Flavian dynasty which took over the task of
completing the urbanization of the peninsula.

III. ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

The numerous municipal foundations at the end of the Republic and
under Augustus changed the situation in Spain fundamentally. The
juridical status of several communities was elevated. Apart from the
existence of communities of Roman citizens in the older and the newly
founded colonies, a high number of peregrine communities of the native
population now received autonomous status. In contrast with their
former status, which had allowed the local authorities self-government
only to a limited extent, they achieved the status of manicipia and with
that, on the basis of a specifically defined relationship with the provincial
governor or other Roman officials, the right of administering their own
affairs through proper magistrates elected by the assembly of the citizens,
and through the decisions of the local ordo decurionum. This privilege was
granted on the basis either of the Roman citizenship or at least of the éas
Lati, which enabled rich fellow-citizens to obtain the civitas Romana by
holding municipal Aonores.!° The communal organization of the cities
with the as Latii was regulated according to principles for the constitu-
tions of Latin municipia laid down in town charters which may go back to
a general Augustan law for the municipia of the provinces, as has been
deduced from the Flavian Lex Irnitana, the recently discovered town
charter for the municipium of Irni in Baetica.20 The towns experienced
considerable economic growth from the Principate of Augustus
onwards. The urban éerritoria comprised the best areas for agriculture as,
for example, in the valley of the river Baetis (Guadalquivir), which was,
according to Strabo, full of farms improved with groves and gardens of
various plants.24 The towns became centres of industry and trade. The
same author praises the export of corn, wine and oil from Baetica,
emphasizing the importance of the Spanish trade for Italy and Rome; he
also mentions several other products of the country, among them fish-
sauces (garum), which are also clearly attested by archaeological evi-
dence. He also emphasizes the wealth of the Iberian peninsula in
minerals, noting that no other country furnishes gold, silver, copper and
iron in the same quantity and quality as Spain. That mining was another
of the sources of wealth in the towns, is clear from Strabo’s remark that

19 On municipal institutions in Roman Spain, cf. Alfoldy 1987 (E 205) 27-9 (with further
bibliography).

20 See on this A. d’Ors, Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espaniol 54 (1984) 535-73; #d., Lex Flavia
Municipalis (Rome, 1986); Gonzalez 1986 (B 235).

21 For what follows see Strab. 111.2.3-10 (142—8c).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ECONOMY AND SOCIETY 459

the silver mines in the neighbourhood of Carthago Nova, and also in
other places, had passed from state into private ownership.

The degree to which the owners of mines and other economic
resources could enrich themselves during the early Empire, can be
demonstrated by the example of Sextus Marius, probably from Corduba,
who was, according to Tacitus,”? the richest man of his time in Spain.
After he had been put to death in a.p. 33, his enormous wealth,
consisting particularly of gold-mines and other mines, was taken into the
imperial patrimonium and was given a procuratorial administration,
which still existed in the Flavian period. Not only was the road-station
Mariana (now Nuestra Sefiora de Mairena) in the eastern Sierra Morena
named after him, but so too was the whole Sierra Morena, a name
derived, it seems, from the ancient name of the mountain range, Mons
Marianus.

Atthe same time, it was due above all to the new local elites that towns
received magnificent public buildings. Some of these were gifts from
emperors and from members of the imperial family, such as the
marvellous theatre at Emerita Augusta, given by Agrippa, or the
amphitheatre of the same colony, a donation by Augustus; but public
buildings were normally paid for by local magistrates or by other rich
citizens; in the reign of Augustus, for example, the forum of Saguntum
(Sagunto), was paid for from a legacy from one Cnaeus Baebius
Geminus, a member of the most prestigious family of that municipium.2

The accumulation of wealth entailed changes in the social structure. A
local elite developed in each town, comprising the rich land-holders in
the territorium, who were frequently also engaged in industry, trade and
mining. This elite furnished the magistrates and constituted the ordo
decurionum of the cities. In Roman colonies, which normally had a
population of lower origin but at the same time offered highly favour-
able conditions for making money by trade, and in the provincial capitals
where there were also good opportunities for social advancement
through service in the imperial administration, these elites constituted,
as at Tarraco and Barcino, the uppermost group of a society which
allowed social mobility ona relatively large scale and generally admitted
into the political elite the sons of rich freedmen and immigrants. In at
least some sunicipia such as Saguntum, however, the upper class,
composed of a small group of old leading families, carefully guarded its
privileges, building a ‘closed’ society, closing its ranks to people of
humble origin and to newcomers, and holding in dependence the lower
population both of town and countryside through the institutions of
slavery and clientela. That social differentiation deepened can be deduced

2 Tac. Ann. vi.19.
® F, Beltran Lloris, Epigrafia latina de Saguntum _y su territorium (Valencia, 1980) no. 64.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

460 13¢. SPAIN

not only from the official distinction of ordo and plebs in the population
of the towns, but also from the spread of slavery in the towns and their
neighbourhoods. Above all, slaves were frequently manumitted in the
urban centres but in the countryside, in particular on the estates of the
interior, manumission seems to have been rarely practised.24

The most emphatic sign of social differentiation in the context of the
Roman social order was that the richest and most distinguished members
of the urban elites could enter the equestrian and the senatorial orders. It
may be symptomatic of the general level of Romanization in Spain and of
its importance in the Roman empire, that the first Roman senator of non-
Italian origin, Quintus Varius Severus, ¢ribunus plebis in 90 B.c., from
Sucro near Valencia, was a Spaniard, as was the first consul born outside
Italy, Lucius Cornelius Balbus the Elder, from Gades, consul in 40 B.c.;
and later, the first emperor with a patria outside the Italian peninsula,
Trajan, was from Spain. Apart from the Cornelii Balbi at Gades, at the
end of the Republic and under the early Principate, there were already
some senatorial families in the towns of Baetica, such as the family of the
Aelii at Italica who were the ancestors of Hadrian, and the Annaei, the
family of Seneca, at Corduba. In the imperial period this province
provided an extremely high number of senators for Rome. The social
background for the ascent of such families may be revealed by the
statement of Strabo that under Augustus there were no fewer than 500
knights at Gades, a figure matched only at Patavium (Padova) in
northern Italy.25 One or two generations later, about the middle of the
first century A.D., we also find the first senators from the cities of the
eastern coast of Hispania Citerior, such as the Pedanii from Barcino,
Raecius Taurus from Tarraco and Marcus Aelius Gracilis from Dertosa
(Tortosa). To the same generation as the two latter belongs Quintus
Iulius Cordus, a praetorian senator under Nero, who seems to have come
from Lusitania and who may have been the first of the few senators from
this province.%6

The evolution of urban life, particularly the rise of the upper classes of
the urban society, also created the conditions for cultural development.
Over and above the spread of literacy, several towns offered good
opportunities for education and stimulated intellectual ambitions —
especially in Baetica with its high concentration of urban centres. As in
northern Italy and southern Gaul, the elites of the urban society in

24 Slavery in Roman Spain: See now V.M. Smirin, in: E.M. Staerman ef al., Die Sklaverei in den
westlichen Provingen des rémischen Reiches im 1.-3. Jabrbundert (Stuttgart, 1987) 38-12; cf. G. Alféldy,
ZPE 67 (1987) 249-62. 25 Strab. 11.5.3 (169) and v.1.7 (2130).

% On Roman senators from Spain, including the persons mentioned here and below, see, above

all, Le Roux 1982 (£ 229) (Hispania Citerior); Castillo Garcia 1982 (E 214) (Baetica); Etienne 1982 (E
218) (Lusitania).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMANIZATION 461

Baetica produced under Augustus and the Julio-Claudian emperors not
only an increasing number of new equestrian and senatorial families, but
also, from exactly the same social environment, men at the peak of
contemporary intellectual life. The family of the Annaei from Corduba,
with Seneca the Elder, the rhefor and historian of equestrian rank under
Augustus, Seneca the Younger, who was not only one of the richest but
also one of the most erudite senators in the reigns of Claudius and Nero,
and Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, the poet and the nephew of the philoso-
pher, furnishes the best example of intellectual interest and capacity in an
ambitious leading family of this kind, which had risen from the
provincial upper class of the capital of Baetica. But there were also other
men of letters from this province, like the rhetor and senator Iunius
Gallio, probably from Corduba, who adopted one of the brothers of
Seneca the Younger, Pomponius Mela the geographer, from Tingentera
near Algeciras, and Lucius Iunius Moderatus Columella, the author of
the Res Rusticae, a knight from Gades.?7

Iv. THE IMPACT OF ROMANIZATION

The political, economic, social and cultural development of Spain in the
period between the collapse of the Republic and the end of the Julio-
Claudian dynasty was enormous. The Iberian peninsula, once a field of
continuous resistance to Rome, became, in spite of its geographical
situation on the periphery of the Mediterranean world, an area of central
importance in the Roman empire. But it would be wrong to believe that
all the changes which took place in the period covered in this volume
produced a uniform picture in the Iberian peninsula by the end of the
period. On the whole, it may be less important that some older trading
centres of the Mediterranean coast did not participate in the general
boom: Emporiae (Empuries), for example, an amalgamation of Greek
colony, native settlement and Roman town, was not able to compete
with the flourishing harbour cities of younger foundations, such as the
colonies of Tarraco or Barcino.28 There was an immense contrast
between the intensively urbanized regions of Baetica, the eastern parts of
Hispania Citerior and southern Lusitania on the one hand, and the
backward areas in the interior and in the north west on the other. In the
latter areas, where less favourable geographical conditions and, above

7 On the rise and importance of these ‘colonial elites’ from Roman Spain; cf. R. Syme, Colonial
Elites. Rome, Spain and the Americas (Oxford, 1958) 1-23.

2% On Emporiae, cf. now J. Aquilué et al., El forum roma d’ Empuries (excavacions de any 1982). Una
aproximacié arqueolégica al procés bistéric de la romanitzacié al nord-est de la Peninsula Ibérica (Barcelona,
1984).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

462 13¢. SPAIN

all, a very different historical background presented a framework for
further development of a kind quite different from that in the south and
in the east, Roman influence was by no means as deep as it was in the
regions early Romanized. Literary, epigraphical and archaeological
evidence here shows a continuity not only of the native population, but.
also of its social order and culture.?°

Indigenous nomenclature and local cults were preserved in the
interior and particularly in north-western Spain not only during the early
Empire, but also later. The social framework was provided by the
gentilitates, that is, the native clan organizations (which were replaced in
Callaecia by the alliance of the inhabitants of caste//a, native settlements
with a proper organization). The Roman administration was based,
before municipalization, on the existence of communities which con-
sisted of several clans and were called either gens, civitas or populus. They
had their own authorities, that is, a local senate and office-holders called
magistratus or magistri and, as they were frequently the counterpart of a
more important settlement and its territory, they were often the nuclei of
an urban development.* Originally, these communities were parts of
larger tribes, which had a rather loose organization, loose enough even
to allow armed conflicts between single population groups. As this tribal
system was not suitable for the purposes of the Roman administration, it
was not in Rome’s interest to maintain the tribal units. While the conventus
of Asturica Augusta, Lucus Augusti and Bracara Augusta corresponded
to the tribal organization of the Astures and Callaeci (the latter were
divided into two conventus), in other parts of Spain the tribes did not
retain their own organizations. On the contrary, the population group of
the Celtiberi, for example, in central Spain were not only divided into
several populi, such as the Segobrigenses, but at the same time the populi
from Segobriga to Clunia were distributed among the three conventus of
Carthago Nova, Caesaraugusta and Clunia.?!

In spite of the survival of native traditions, the impact of Romaniza-
tion was also evident in these backward areas in the Julio-Claudian age.
Apart from the construction of roads and the consequences of contacts
with the Roman population of the peninsula through trade, administ-
ration and military control, the main method of Romanization was, as
elsewhere, to make at least the upper classes of the native population see
that their interests coincided with those of Rome. At the beginning of
the imperial period, the recruitment of the youth of native tribes into the
numerous auxiliary units raised from the population of the backward

29 Cf. especially the development in the north-western part of the Iberian peninsula; on this
Tranoy 1981 (£ 244) esp. 261-384.

3% On clan organization, see now Gonzalez Rodriguez 1986 (E 225); on local magistrates and
senates cf. now esp. Alfoldy 1987 (E 205) 50-1. 31 AlfOldy 1987 (E 205) rro-it.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMANIZATION 463

areas, was also a safety measure; it contributed, moreover, for the first
time to educating people in the Latin language and Roman mores.>2 The
extension of the Roman citizenship created new privileged groups in the
population. But peregrine chiefs of the native communities also became
representatives of the political interests of Rome. The foundation of the
first municipia in the interior opened a channel of deeper Romanization
similar to that in the south and the east. And there was one institution
which bound together local aristocracies from all parts of the country:
imperial cult, organized not only in the co/oniae and in the municipia, but
also for the whole population of larger areas, on the level of the conventus,
and even of the provinces as a whole (in Baetica, the provincial cult
seems to have been institutionalized first under Vespasian). The provin-
cial cult was established in the form of an annual meeting of the concilium
provinciae, comprised of representatives of communities with different
statuses, under the presidency of the flamen provinciae, and it became a
very important factor in the integration of local elites with different
social backgrounds into a new, homogeneous ‘provincial’ aristocracy.
How interested Spanish elites were in this cult which, at the same time,
contributed to their own prestige, may be illustrated by the fact that the
construction of the famous temple of Augustus at Tarraco, begun in A.D.
15 and setting an exemp/um for other provinces, had been approved at the
request of the Hispani.3

On the whole, a century after the establishment of the Principate at
Rome and after the conquest of north-western Spain by the first princeps,
the southern and eastern areas of the Iberian peninsula were fully
integrated into the political, economic, social and cultural system of
Rome, while the backward regions of the interior and of the north west
were well on their way to overcoming the retardation caused by
geographical and historical factors. By the end of the Julio-Claudian
period Spain was in a certain sense mature enough to become the centre
of political power, not as a result of the presence of a princeps from Rome,
as under Augustus, but by virtue of its own efforts. The revolt against
Nero by Servius Sulpicius Galba in a.p. 68, who had been governor of
Hispania Citerior for ten years, and his proclamation as emperor by the
Senate at Rome, revealed, according to Tacitus, the secret of the imperial
power: that it was possible to create an emperor outside Rome.** That
Spain could be the country where this truth was demonstrated for the
first time was a consequence of its development from the end of the
Republic onwards.

32 On the recruitment of Spaniards for the Roman army, see, above all, Roldan Hervas 1974 (£
235) esp. 233-86; cf. Le Roux 1982 (E£ 228) 284—-go.

33 Tac. Ann. 1.78. Imperial cult in Spain: cf. Etienne 1958 (£ 217); cf. now also Fishwick 1987 (F
137) esp. 150-8, and 219-39. 4 Tac. Hist. 1.4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 13d

GAUL

Cc. GOUDINEAU

I. INTRODUCTION

Caesar’s conquest of Gaul fundamentally shifted the balance of the
Roman world, up until then based on the Mediterranean, with the single
exception of the Black Sea. The ‘new territories’ represented a vast
addition to the empire, comprising some 30 per cent of its land area apart
from Italy. Exposed to central Europe, and especially to the German
barbarians and other groups, amongst them the Cimbri and Teutones,
who had already left their mark on Roman history, they stretched to the
northern oceans, and to Britain, which Caesar had abandoned, after
suffering his only failure. The occupation of the new provinces
demanded, in the short term, that the Alps and the Pyrenees be
subjugated and that control be established over the Rhine and the
Danube. The Gallic Wars had utterly and irreversibly transformed the
geopolitics of the ancient world. Conversely, the history of Gaul
reflected its new environment, and the new strategic geography formed
by the German frontier and the proximity of Britain, with all the
attendant social and economic repercussions.!

! Despite the enormous amount written about Gaul, the bibliography of the subject is limited,
most of all because no one has been brave or foolish enough to revise and update Camille Jullian’s
great Histoire de la Gaule, which was published in eight volumes between 1907 and 1926. Similarly,
the basic guide to the archaeology is still Albert Grenier’s Manuel & Archéologie gallo-romaine, also
comprising eight volumes, the first of which appeared in 1931 and the last in 1960. Both works are in
many respects out of date, but the high reputation they rightly possess has prevented anyone from
trying to produce anything similar, particularly as any modern version would have to be multi-
disciplinary and thus a collaborative venture which might be difficult to organize. Duval 1971 (E
332) contains an exhaustive bibliography covering all areas of research in Roman Gaul. There have
been a few general accounts, but on the whole scholars have devoted their energies to compiling a
series of specialist corpora, catalogues of literary references, of inscriptions, of mosaics, of sculpture,
of coins and, most recently begun, of wall-paintings. No syntheses, however, have emerged from
these corpora. Two kinds of studies which have proved popular over the last twenty or thirty years
are investigations focused on a particular town or alternatively a given civitas, often taking the form
of a local gazetteer or inventory. But little has been written on the countryside, let alone the
economy as a whole. Another complicating factor is that the area known to the Romans as Gaul is
today divided up among Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany and France. Each nation
has its own distinctive working methods and traditions, and, quite rightly, the image of Gaul in each
country reflects its place in the national heritage. In France, the universities have traditionally
accorded a special place to the study of the classical world. Asa result, attention has been focused on

464

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

INTRODUCTION 465

But it is impossible to understand ancient texts or decisions, such as
those that created the administrative structure or the road system, if we
continue to base our analyses on present-day cartography. It is important
to remember that as late as Pliny, and perhaps as late as Ptolemy,
geographical knowledge remained extremely approximate. Book rv of
Strabo’s Geography, devoted to Gaul and completed about a.p. 18,
illustrates the point. The information is more or less reliable for southern
Gaul: the descriptions of the relief and of the rivers, the distances
(sometimes given in Roman miles), the territories occupied by different
peoples and cities are all presented with a high degree of accuracy, for the
period. But for the remainder of Gaul the account is staggering:
following Caesar,? all the coastlines (including those on the shores of the
Atlantic) are described as facing the north and the Pyrenees as running
north-south, parallel to the Rhine and also to the courses of the
Garonne, the Loire and the Seine. The coast of Great Britain lies

epigraphy, law, cities, monuments and art history at the expense of research into regional analysis,
stratigraphic sequences, rural studies and everyday life. The economy has been studied only through
the medium of pottery, the importance of which has consequently been greatly exaggerated, and
more recently other categories of small finds, including glass and metalwork. It has proved much
more difficult to win acceptance for subjects such as landscape archaeology, research into field
systems, pollen analysis, environmental archaeology and the study of human and animal bones.
Fieldwork in France has for a long time been conducted on a piecemeal basis. In some areas that
continues to be the case, but in recent years the demands of rescue excavation have led to some very
large-scale projects in some of the more important Roman towns and also some programmes of
rural survey in advance of motorway construction or the extension of the high speed rail network.
Before these developments, the majority of excavations had been in small urban centres, albeit ones
of some historical interest, such as Glanum and Alésia. Rescue archaeology has changed all that, but
the conditions under which it has to be undertaken mean that much of the enormous new database it
has generated remains unpublished.

Texts: Duval 1971 (E 332) Lerat 1977 (E415). Inscriptions: the basic material is to be found in CIL
xu and x11 (for supplements to the latter see ch. 13/, n. 1) and ILTG. The most important recent
collections are ILGN and RIG; note also R. Marichal, Les grafftes de la Graufesenque, Gallia suppl. 47
(1988). Mosaics: see the Recueil général des mosaiques de la Gaule, appearing regularly in Suppl. X of the
journal Gallia. Painting: Barbet 1974 (E 267), the first volume of a Recweil général des peintures murales de
4a Gaule. Coinage: Corpus des trésors monttaires de la France (1982-).

The Carte archéologique de la Gaule, published by the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres
was originally compiled in 1930, and began to be revised in 1988. Each volume analyses discoveries
covering the period from the Iron Age to the eighth century A.p. Since 1988, the sections covering
the following départements have appeared: Allier, Creuse, Finistére, Indre-et-Loire, Loire-et-Cher,
Loire, Loiret, Lozére, Maine-et-Loire and Manche.

Surveys of work on Gaul continue to appear in REA. Note also Résumés f archéologie suisse (from
1981) and, for archaeological discoveries, a new series in the journal Gallia, entitled Gallia-
Informations. The Centre National d’Archéologie urbaine de Tours publishes a Brbliographie
Parchéologie urbaine, two fascicles have appeared, for 1975-85 and 1986-7 (Tours, 1989). There are
numerous museum guides and catalogues with bibliographies. Note particularly the collection of
the Ministére de culture frangais, Guides archéologiques de la France (from 1984: 1. Vaison-la-Romaine,
2. Saint-Romain-en-Gal, 4. Alésia, 5. Alba, 7. Les Bolards, 8. Narbonne, 12. Autun, 13. Bibracte)
and the Guides archéologiques de la Suisse. There are noteworthy catalogues or guides for Lyons (rue des
Farges), Autun, Trier, Neuss, Geneva and other cities but, unfortunately, many of these are not to
be found in libraries.

2 Caes. BGall. 1v.20.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SE
FS Land over 1,000 metres
SCALE

The map shows only Roman sites within the Gallic, German and Alpine provinces and not those in
Spain or Britain.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

INTRODUCTION 467

1000 stades

P
Y
R
E
N
E
E
s

Fig. 8. The geography of Gaul according to Strabo.

opposite that of Gaul, from the mouth of the Rhine as far as the Pyrenees,
and the channel between Britain and Gaul is said to be 320 stades (some
50 km) in width. All the distances are wrong, some of them by a huge
margin.

Finally, our sources are both poor and uneven in coverage. Literary
sources provide a certain amount of information for the period 43 B.c. —
A.D. 69, but it mostly relates to the German Wars or to just a few
episodes, which, as a result, tend to be accorded disproportionate
importance. From then on, the silence of the texts is almost unbroken for
a century and a half. Epigraphic evidence is distributed very unevenly:
inscriptions are common in Narbonensis in the Julio-Claudian period,
but rare in the Tres Galliae, and mostly later than the first century A.D.

1. Gaul or the Gallic provinces?

In what follows, I shall treat Narbonensis (formerly Transalpina)
separately from the Tres Galliae (formerly Comata). This distinction
contrasts with that of traditional histories that present Gaul as a unity. Is
there any point in it?

From the Augustan period, neither texts nor inscriptions ever use the
term Gallia except in a purely geographical sense, as we might say South

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

468 13d. GAUL

America or the Far East. Sources always speak of the Gauls (Galliae),
conveying no impression of a homogeneous whole extending from the
Mediterranean Sea to the Channel. Narbonensis is always considered to
be a separate entity. This was not just because it had been conquered for
eighty years at the death of Caesar. It was also a familiar zone, part of the
Mediterranean world and long part of its history, largely through the
agency of Marseilles. Beyond the Cevennes and Vienne, however, were
more northern lands, the harsh climate of which had made its mark not
only on the countryside and its products but also on its human
inhabitants. Accounts of it did not always systematically emphasize the
savagery of these ‘barbarians’, but it was never far from the minds of
Romans. This was a new world, as yet ill understood if not unexplored.
The distinction between Narbonensis and Comata thus goes back to the
sources.

Was Comata itself conceived of as a single entity? The Augustan
division of it into three provinces (Aquitania, Belgica and Lugdunensis)
might suggest that it was not. But, at least until the beginning of
Tiberius’ reign, the three provinces were organized as a single com-
mand, and, in 12 B.c., Drusus founded the altar of Condate, at the
confluence of the Saéne and the Rhéne near Lugdunum (Lyons), at
which delegates of the sixty peoples of these three provinces were to
assemble for the next three centuries.3 Each year on the 1 August, the
representatives of the elites of Saintes and Chartres, Langres and
Périgueux met to celebrate the imperial cult. There they competed, to be
sure, in the election of the chief priest (the sacerdos) and his assistants,
elections which brought glory tothe civitates of the successful candidates,
but they were above all united in defence of their common interests. One
occasion when this happened was in A.D. 48, in the reign of Claudius,
when the issue was winning permission for the Roman citizens of non-
Mediterranean Gaul to become magistrates at Rome. In fact, Claudius
himself, when defending the legitimacy of this request to the Roman
Senate, used the term Gallia Comata.* Besides, the official dedications
made at the Confluence, in so far as epigraphic discoveries can tell us,
were made in the name of the Tres Provinciae Galliae, which should be
translated not as ‘the three provinces of Gaul’ but as ‘the three Gallic
provinces’. Does this make Gaul a unity?

In fact, administration should be distinguished from psychology.
Gauls never represented themselves, in all the honorific and funerary
inscriptions they set up, either as Gauls or as members of a given
province, but rather as belonging to the civitas of the Remi, the Pictones,
the Redones or the Aedui. One inscription shows that the emperor

3 For a different view on the date of the dedication of the altar see above p. 98.
* CIL xt 1668.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

INTRODUCTION 469

Claudius allowed the Silvanectes to establish their own civitas separate
from that of the Lingones.5 Tacitus writes that in the course of the events
of A.D. 68—9, the states of non-Mediterranean Gaul could not agree on a
common policy because long-standing quarrels and rivalries continued
to divide them: ‘who was to lead the war? ... Some based their claim on
treaties [i.e.: their status as foederati], others on their wealth and
manpower, yet others on the antiquity of their origins — the debates were
furious. Although arising from other matters, the hostility between
Lyons and Vienne expressed the strength of civic patriotism.’ The
coinage struck in Galba’s reign bearing the legend TRES GALLIAE
emanates from imperial propaganda in a period of crisis, asserting the
unity found, or believed to have been found, at the altar of Condate.

There was no Gaul then, except in the sense of the conceptual
geography of the ancients. The Three Gauls constituted administrative
divisions, loosely based on a faulty ethnography which did not itself
correspond to any more ancient population. The divisions we see, even if
they may have exercised some slight influence on the emergence ofa new
identity, were as artificial, mutatis mutandis, as those colonial boundaries
imposed on Africa in the nineteenth century. All the same, the imperial
cult and the annual ceremonies held at Condate played some unifying
role, in a political sense rather than an administrative or psychological
one.

2. Caesar: his death and his legacy

Did Caesar’s death in 44 B.c. mark aturning-point? The question is not as
Naive as it appears. There is no doubt that it influenced the course of
events, even if we do not know the dictator’s plans. One clear example
may be cited. Towards the end of 45 B.c., just a few months before he was
assassinated, Caesar had sent Tiberius Nero, the father of the future
emperor, to ‘found colonies in Gaul, among them Narbonne and Arles’.8
In the case of Narbo Martius, founded in 118 B.c., this amounted to a re-
foundation for the benefit of veterans of the Tenth Legion (Decuma-
norum), while at Arles it was a new foundation for veterans of the Sixth
(Sextanorum).

Suetonius’ expression ‘among them’ (sn queis) suggests that other
colonies were founded. Why are they not mentioned? One possibility is
that these were not Roman colonies, like Narbonne and Arles, but Latin
colonies, which, from the first century a.D., would not have the right to
be titled co/oniae. I shall return to these foundations below, but for the
moment I would like to set this passage in relation to Dio’s famous
account of the foundation of Lugdunum (Lyons).° In 43 B.c. the Senate

5 ILTG 357. 6 Tac. Hist. 1v.69. 7 Tac. Hist. 1.65. 8 Suet. Tid. 4. 9 Dio xiv1.50.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

479 13d. GAUL

ordered Lepidus, the governor of Transalpina, and Plancus, who was in
charge of Gallia Comata, ‘to found a city for those who had previously
(pote) been ejected from Narbonensian Vienne by the Allobroges and
who had established themselves at the confluence of the Rhéne and the
Arar [the Sadne]’. This was the occasion of the foundation of
Lugdunum.

What does this text mean? Had colonists been installed at Vienne and
then ejected by the Allobroges? If so, when? The most likely occasion is
as follows: Tiberius Nero founded a Latin colony at Vienne in 45 B.c.,
then, on the death of Caesar, the Allobroges drove out the colonists, who
took refuge among the Segusiaves at the confluence of the Sadne and the
Rhone. The expulsion was a serious matter, which the Senate took steps
to rectify, but it was unable to force the Allobroges, (whose military
power made a considerable difference in time of civil war) to implement
Caesar’s decision. As the result of a compromise, a colony was founded
at Lyons. What is important in this context is the indirect evidence of
violent disturbances following the death of Caesar. They were short-
lived, but Rome’s representatives were only able to retain control of the
situation thanks to the personal links that the dictator had fostered, and
which were taken up by his lieutenants, Plancus and the triumvir
Antony, and then by his adopted son Octavian. Even more importantly,
Iulius Caesar’s direct descendants continued to rule the world for more
than a century. Continuing loyalties, c/iente/ae, campaigns on the Rhine,
in which many members of the imperial family took part, imperial visits
and the occasional chance imperial birth in Gaul all combined to
outweigh and neutralize the effects of that ‘anti-Gallic’ hostility which
had been so strongly felt in Italy, ever since the sack of Rome, and which
was still strong among the senatorial class as late as the reign of
Claudius.!° A direct, personal relationship with the emperors is notice-
able on several occasions up until the reign of Nero. It was a two-way
relationship: after a period of agitation, the Gallic provinces, or rather
their elites, remained faithful to the descendants of Caesar, who in turn
kept faith with the Gauls.

The nature of the evidence and the issues that arise from it lead me to
make two preliminary observations. First, it is pointless to make
Romanization the main theme of this account. The Gallic provinces are
Roman. In so far as an account of them contributes to our understanding
of the Roman world, it is to qualify and emphasize its heterogeneous
character, and perhaps its composite nature. What is the point in trying
to assess the Gallic provinces against a standard of ‘Romanity’ that
cannot itself be characterized? Far better to attempt, if it is possible, to
study the transformations, their rhythm and the processes at work

10 Tac. Ann. x1.23-4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GALLIA NARBONENSIS 471

behind them. Second, rather than treat in turn two periods with very
unequal evidence in CAH x and x1, I have decided to reserve discussion
of the complex questions of long-term developments, for example in
agriculture, the economy and religion, for CAH x1, except in so far as
the period now under consideration played an important role in them.

I. GALLIA NARBONENSIS

Despite one ambiguous reference of Cicero,!! it seems that the term
Narbonensis is Augustan in origin. Its first occurrence is in the cursus of
Cn.Pullius Pollio, proconsul of provincia Narbonensis around 18~16 B.c.!2
The term doubtless became official in 27 B.c., when Augustus held a
conventus at Narbonne and ‘made a census of the Gauls and organized
their civic and political status’.!3 The limits of the province were more or
less the same as those of the former province of Transalpina.

Some adjustments were probably made in 13 B.c., in the case of
Convenae, for example, after the completion of campaigns of pacifica-
tion in the Pyrenees. Similarly, other changes followed the conquest of
the Alps, marked by the Tropaeum Alpium at La Turbie which was set
up while Augustus held tribunician power for the seventeenth time, that
is between 1 July 7 B.c. and 30 June 6 B.c. Three new Alpine districts
were set up (Alpes Maritimae, Alpes Cottiae and Alpes Graiae) which
were not part of the Gallic provinces and so will not be treated here, but
as a consequence it was necessary to establish boundaries between those
areas belonging to the new districts, those of Narbonensis and perhaps
those attached to Italy. The state of Antibes, previously part of Italy,!4
was incorporated in Narbonensis at this point while Cemenelum, in the
immediate vicinity of Massilia’s old trading post Nikaia, became the
capital of the new district of Alpes Maritimae.

The Tropaeum of La Turbie, contrary to what is commonly written,
did not mark the frontier between Italy and Transalpina, or Narbonen-
sis. It was set up at the most western point reached by the campaigns of
conquest of the Alps ‘a mari supero ad inferum’, that is from the Adriatic
to the Ligurian coast of the Mediterranean.'5 Set up on the Via Iulia Apta
that ran from Italy into Narbonensis, it marked the conquest of the
mountains and the freeing of that road from banditry. It was probably
conceived as the twin of the trophy set up by Pompey at the Pyrenees,
also on the road linking Spain and Italy. It is almost certainly that trophy
which has recently been found on the col de Panissars, straddling the
present day frontier between France and Spain. It symbolizes the
permanent control established from then on over communications

"Fam x.25. 12 CIL x1 7553. 13 Dio tiit.22. 4 Strab. 1v.1.9 (184¢).
'S Pliny, HN 111.136.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

472 13d. GAUL

between Italy and the western provinces. From this point on, Narbonen-
sis, like Tarraconensis and Baetica, was completely integrated into the
Roman world, to the extent that no historical event worthy of mention is
recorded until the Neronian crisis.

A comparison of two key texts provides a convenient starting-point
for an analysis of the province. If we are to believe Cicero’s pro Fonteio
written around 70 B.c., the province of Transalpina was populated by
wild and untamed tribes in the midst of which civilized values were
upheld by the Roman administration, Italian farmers and traders, the
colonists of Narbonne (since 118 B.c.) and Rome’s faithful ally Mar-
seilles. Pliny, writing c. A.D. 70, described Narbonensis as ¢4e province
par excellence, ‘Italia verius quam provincia’.!6 The contrast between the
two passages is striking, even if we are dealing with the biased account of
an advocate defending a governor accused of misappropriation of public
funds and other irregularities in the first text, and in the second with a
phrase that is so brief it can only be a simplification. The two authors are
similar in many respects, both Romans, both engaged in public life but
also educated and scholarly writers, but their opinions of the province
are completely different. What had changed? The province itself or the
opinion of the ruling classes of Rome? The answer is that both had
changed, and the problem is to take account of this interaction, not to
ignore it.

The two texts are separated by 140 years, about six generations, which
is a short space of time, in pre-modern conditions, for such a fundamen-
tal transformation. Pliny emphasizes the scale of the change, as he felt it,
in another passage when he describes the marvellous silverware of
Pompeius Paulinus, the son of a Roman egues from Arelate (Arles) but
then goes on to remark that Paulinus’ paternal grandparents had dressed
in animal skins.!7 Similar expressions can be found in other authors. A
topos existed, then, according to which Narbonensis had been suddenly
and dramatically civilized. Our task is to use our scanty sources to assess
the basis of this claim.

1. Juridical integration

The importance of the preceding period makes it necessary briefly to
summarize developments. We know little of the stages by which the
province was originally set up, although we may presume that Pompey
played an important role in the years between 78 and 75 8B.C., but it is
clear that several states had been granted individual civic statuses by
various Roman politicians, among them C. Valerius Flaccus, Pompey
atid, of course, Caesar. Despite Cicero’s rhetoric, examples of litigation,

16 Pliny, HN ut.31. 17 Pliny, HN xxxtll.5o0.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GALLIA NARBONENSIS 473

such as the charges made against Fonteius, show that a ‘pro-Roman’ elite
had emerged. In the course of the Gallic War, Caesar included on his staff
several of the sons of southern principes, some of whom had been his
guests in Rome. He congratulated himself on the loyalty of the provincia:
but the implication is that it did not go without saying.

The growing integration of axxiliarii into the army had affected
broader social classes, including the inhabitants of rural areas and
villages which had been largely unaffected by commerce or the influence
of the Roman administration. Through their experience of military
service, and the wealth and knowledge of Latin they acquired through it,
these men contributed to a transformation of indigenous mentalités.
Caesar’s destruction in 49-48 B.c. of what may be termed ‘Massiliot
imperialism’ — an imperialism that was all the more harsh as it was not
accompanied by any political integration — was an important factor. We
do not know the precise point at which the Latin right was granted to the
communities which Pliny described as oppida /atina,'® but it makes most
sense to attribute the change to Caesar. The important thing is that in a
period of at most fifteen years, that is between 58 and 44 B.c., the whole
of southern Gaul was granted Latin status. We know of no group which
was excepted from this measure.

No attempt at colonization had been made since the founding of
Narbo Martius, despite the hypotheses that have been advanced, on no
evidence, for foundations at Vienne and Valence. Caesar began a new
colonial programme with the refoundation of Narbonne, the foundation
of Arles and the Latin colonies, the abortive foundation at Vienne
described above, the colony at Nyon in Switzerland and others as well,
probably one at Nimes and certainly one at Valence.

It is against this background that the activities of Caesar’s successors
must be seen. Octavian renewed the colonizing programme by founding
in his turn Roman colonies at Béziers, Orange and Fréjus, although the
dates of these foundations are controversial. Most importantly, several
imperial decisions promoted the integration of the elites of Narbonensis.
The province was ‘returned to the Roman people’ around 22 B.c.,!° that
is to say the emperor handed over its administration to the Senate, and it
no longer played any strategic or military role. Augustus and Tiberius
together decided in A.D. 14, just before the former’s death, to grant the
right to stand for election to magistracies in Rome to a// the Roman
citizens of the province, both those who had gained citizenship through
an individual grant and those who had obtained it by holding a civic
magistracy in a Latin community, in other words anywhere in the
province. This allowed them to aspire to membership of the senatorial
classes, a privilege which had hitherto been reserved for the citizens of

18 Pliny, HN 111.3 1-7. 19 Dio Lim.12.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

474 13d. GAUL

Roman colonies. Another symbolic, but important, decision in A.D. 49
allowed Roman senators to move without permission not only to Italy
and Sicily but also to Narbonensis.

It is worth assessing the extent of this juridical integration, too often
obscured by a litany of famous names. The names are always the same:
knights like Pompeius Paulinus, who served as prefect of the annona in
Claudius’ reign; L. Vestinus, a prefect of Egypt; and Burrus who was
Nero’s tutor, served as praetorian prefect and was awarded consular
ornamenta, and senators like Valerius Asiaticus from Vienne, who held
two consulships, on the second occasion, in A.D. 46, as Claudius’
colleague. But alongside these famous names, statistical analysis shows
that Narbonensis was ahead of all other provinces from the end of the
republican era, and remained in first place to the end of the first century
A.D. Both in terms of the number of equestrians and senators it produced
and in the brilliance of their careers, it surpassed every other part of the
Roman world, except for peninsular Italy. It is particularly striking that
it outdid the Spanish, African and Eastern provinces, most of which had
been created before Narbonensis, and many of which also had numbers
of Roman colonies. To understand the reasons for this success, it is
necessary to leave aside the broader picture and examine the component
parts of the province, the civitates.

2. The organization of territory

The emperor Augustus’ main concern during his stay at Narbonne in 27
B.c.20 was, according to Dio,”! the organization of the areas conquered
by Caesar, in other words non-Mediterranean Gaul. As for Narbonensis,
he must simply have put the final touches to the organization already set
up by Caesar, with a few adjustments, in particular the colonial
foundations of the triumviral period. The formula provinciae listed five
Roman colonies (Narbonne, Arles, Fréjus, Béziers and Orange), two
allied states (Marseilles and the Vocontii) and about seventy-five oppida
latina, that is to say seventy-five communities granted the Latin right,
enjoying some limited administrative autonomy and with at least junior
magistrates — aediles, quaestors or the equivalent — of their own.
Although this formula was not replaced with a new one, there were
some later modifications which Pliny records. Two communities,
Vienne and Valence, were granted full Roman status at an uncertain
date. But most importantly, forty-three oppida /atina lost their autonomy
and were integrated into neighbouring communities. We do not know
which communities this affected, except in one case: Pliny notes that
twenty-four of them were attached to Nimes, and Strabo confirms this,

2 Livy, Per. 134. 21 Dio u1m.2z2z.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GALLIA NARBONENSIS 475

adding that ‘they paid it tribute’,22 which suggests that Rome gave
Nimes the privilege of collecting taxes for its own benefit. That measure
must date to the Augustan period, perhaps during Augustus’ visit in 16—
13 B.c. No later date can account for the agreement between Pliny and
Strabo.

The number of Latin communities with their own legal identity was
thus drastically reduced, by nearly 6o per cent. On the other hand, some
of the oppida, which retained their Latin status, kept at least their junior
magistracies which provided a means of gaining Roman citizenship, and
were incorporated into much larger states by some unknown mechan-
ism. Although it is always difficult to be certain of the exact number of
civitates or of their precise boundaries, it seems that Narbonensis was
made up of around twenty-two.

The replacement of a large number of tiny communities by a small
number of unified states was a feature of the Augustan period. These
developments demonstrate the emperor’s desire to promote urbanism,
to concentrate the elites in the larger centres and perhaps to limit the
channels by which individuals might automatically become entitled to
Roman citizenship. The case of Nimes is the most striking: even if the
city was already the capital of the Volcae Arecomici and even if federal
magistrates already were based there, Nimes had only been one among
twenty-five Arecomican communities. Augustus attached the twenty-
four others to it, politically and fiscally, paid for its circuit wall, and
established or authorized the mint which produced the famous ‘croco-
dile’ series of asses. The monuments of this city are among the most
splendid in the Roman West. There were limits to this policy of
centralization, limits imposed by tradition and geography. Alongside
the vast territories of the Tectosages with their capital at Toulouse, of
the Arecomici centred on Nimes, of the Vocontii of Vaison and of the
Allobroges of Vienne, there were also smaller civitates among them the
Roman colonial foundations of Béziers and Orange.

Tradition also exercised an influence at the institutional level. The
new civitates did not immediately adopt Italian administrative forms and
the principle of collegiality only replaced the idea of a single magistrate
by slow stages. The title of praetor was replaced first by praetores IIviri
and I/IIviri and then by duoviri in the Roman colonies and quattuorviri in
the Latin states, except among the Vocontii, who continued to be ruled
by praefores up until the third century. Similarly, individuals with
unusual titles, which seem to have military connotations or which
possibly refer to police duties, are attested at Nimes (praefectus vigilum et
armorum), Nyon (praefectus arcendis latrociniis) and among the Vocontii
(praefectus praesidiorum et privatorum).

2 Strab. 1v.1.12 (186—7¢). 3 CIL xi 3151.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

476 13d. GAUL

The record of personal promotions in legal status, elevations to the
senatorial and equestrian orders, shows that the majority did not come
from Roman colonies, but from Vienne and Nimes. Together with
Narbonne, these cities are also those which have left the largest numbers
of inscriptions. Strabo’s source Posidonius, writing at the beginning of
the last century B.c., mentioned those two centres, and them alone, as
‘capitals’ of great peoples, the Allobroges and the Arecomici respecti-
vely.24 The pro Fonteio, written about 70 B.c., also mentions those two
alone. Narbonne, on the other hand, is not mentioned by Posidonius
either as a colony nor as the capital of the province, but simply as the ‘the
port of all Celtica’.25 Despite the fact that the colony of Fréjus provided
the empire with famous men like Agricola’s grandfathers and his father
Iulius Graecinus, it seems clear that veteran colonists and their descen-
dants, even those of Narbonne, were less successful than the sons of the
great cities of Vienne and Nimes, at least in the early period.

How can this be explained? One factor might be the participation of
the Allobroges and the Arecomici in the military expeditions of the last
century B.c. Perhaps the ability of their principes to mobilize thousands of
armed followers? might have encouraged ‘mperatores or governors to
take care to secure their support. Maybe personal ties were established
between them and prominent figures at Rome. Possibly the basis of their
power derived as much from the lands they controlled, as from the
manpower they could raise. All these factors probably played some part.
But most importantly, Augustus’ arrangements did not just take the
existing inequalities in power into account wherever possible, but
actually entrenched them.

3. An economic transformation?

Ever since the conquest, Italians had been accumulating land in
Narbonensis. Cicero’s pro Quinctio documents the process at the begin-
ning of the last century B.c., and shortly afterwards the presence of
farmers and ranchers in the province provides the background to the pro
Fonteio. Narbonne had been founded in 118 B.c. as an exercise in
agricultural colonization, for the benefit of Italian civilians. Marseilles
had, in the meantime, come to possess extensive territory partly through
her own efforts,?’ partly by force”8 and then through benefits bestowed
on the city by Rome. Caesar states that Pompey had, on behalf of the
Roman state, given Marseilles land in the territories of the Volcae
Arecomici and the Helvii to the west of the Rhone.”

24 Strab. tv.1.11 and 12 (185—7c). 25 Strab. 1v.1.12 (186—-7c).

% Cic. Fam. x.21 and x1.11. 77 Strab. 1.4.17 (164-5¢). 2 Strab. tv.1.5 (179-81¢).
2 Caes. BCiw 1.35.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GALLIA NARBONENSIS 477

Although no text mentions it, mining seems to have been important
from the first conquest of Transalpine Gaul. Dressel 1 amphorae have
been found beside mine shafts and galleries at Corbiéres, at la Montagne
Noire, in the valley of the Tarn and in the Pyrenees. Silver and copper,
rather than gold, were probably extracted at these sites. The oldest
mausoleum known on French soil portrays a mounted warrior of the
first half of the last century B.c., who must have presided over the silver
mines at Argenton in the Alps. The place-name Argenton is itself
significant.

But land was the real objective of the Caesarian colonizations of
Narbonne, where the territory was surveyed and redivided, and of Arles.
Did the same apply to the Latin colonies, which I argued above were
probably set up at Vienne, Nimes and Valence? Recent studies of land
divisions, based largely on finds from Orange, tend to support this
hypothesis. The explanation for the foundations at Arles and at Nimes is
found in the fact that after the siege of Marseilles in 49-48 B.c., all the
Phocaean city’s lands were confiscated, apart from its immediate
territory, the Lérin Isles and the city of Nice. As usual, this confiscated
territory was distributed as gifts to individuals and communities, but
more importantly it enabled Caesar to settle veterans and auxiliaries at a
period when the need for land for this purpose was particularly acute.

Between 4o and 28 B.c., Octavian settled veterans of the Seventh
Legion at Béziers, of the Second at Orange and of the Eighth at Fréjus. If
we are to believe Dio, he also gave colonists land in Gaul between 16-14
B.C., after he had taken the title Augustus.3° The only way of accounting
for this is to suppose that he added new contingents to colonies he had
already founded: he himself says that he compensated cities that had
suffered from this fresh influx.3!

The main difficulties arise not so much from interpreting the social
impact of this colonization as from assessing its economic effects. The
notion that the arrival of so many new families invigorated agriculture in
the south has now given way to a highly sceptical view that sees little, if
any, development in this area. A more balanced perspective seems
preferable.

For many years, the land divisions of Narbonensis have been the
object of considerable research. These studies have necessarily advanced
mainly through the development of new methods of analysis. But the
first results, based on the Rhdéne valley and the Languedoc, seem to
indicate that patterns of land division aligned on different orientations
were laid out contemporaneously in adjoining areas, rather than being
superimposed on each other on a variety of occasions. So one set of
divisions would be laid out on one orientation, perhaps to fit in with the

% Dio Liv.23. 3 RG 16.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

478 13d. GAUL

relief or else aligned along a road or some other direction. But it would
be abutted by a second set of divisions, which would continue the
cadastre but following some other orientation, which in its turn was
determined by a different constraint or convenience, only to be met in
turn by some other division ... and so on. The first cadastration might
divide up the best lands, those easiest to farm, the second might
apportion the second best fields and so on.

Cadastre B of the well-known marble tablets from Orange, marks out
the best lands, those assigned to the veteran colonists; the lands let out by
the colony; and finally the lands ‘returned to the Tricastini’ (Tricastinis
reddita), left, that is, for the indigenous inhabitants. This last category
consisted mostly of land located in the least promising areas for
cultivation, so they would have needed to be improved. The land let out
was not marvellous either, but there are good vines there today. Finally,
archaeological discoveries continue to appear in areas abandoned at the
end of the Roman period. Colonization thus probably constituted a
powerful impulse towards the opening up and reclaiming of new land.

Romanization also promoted the development of bigger and more
diversified landholdings. Archaeology, and particularly aerial photo-
graphy, makes it possible to identify the cultivated lands, usually based
around a villa, but not the property divisions. But epigraphic evidence
reveals nobles who were honoured in more than one civitas, suggesting
that they probably owned large estates. The growth of larger and larger
landholdings explains how it was possible to introduce crops that
required substantial capital investment but which offered no immediate
return, such as olive trees, cultivated for oil, and vines. Apart from in the
area controlled by Marseilles, where similar processes had long been
underway, the Augustan period saw the beginning of these develop-
ments, but a major expansion occurred in the middle of the first century
and under the Flavians.

But the major problem is to assess the significance of these changes for
the transformation’‘of the economy as a whole, and in particular the
importance of changes in commerce.

Earlier interpretations were based largely on the evidence of pottery.
The Augustan layers of every excavated site produce large numbers of
sherds of terra sigillata, a red-gloss ware often stamped with Latin names,
and sometimes decorated with classicizing motifs. This pottery, some-
times termed ‘samian ware’ in Britain, was first produced in Arezzo
(Arretium) and then at Pisa and Pozzuoli (Puteoli). Sherds of Arretine
are usually found along with other north Italian fine-wares, especially the
type known as Aco goblets. But around a.D. 10-20, these wares were
replaced by others made in Gaul. The products of Montans, near
Toulouse, and of La Graufesenque, near Millau, were widely distributed

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GALLIA NARBONENSIS 479

to the Roman camps on the frontier, to Spain, to Britain and even to
Italy. This phenomenon was interpreted as an economic boom in
southern Gaul, at the expense of Italian products.

That view has been abandoned for two reasons. First, it was realized
that pottery, always being a cheap commodity, could hardly indicate the
workings of a global economy. Second, recent research has shown that
Italian potters actually moved workshops and equipment (moulds for
decorated wares) to Gaul around 20-10 B.c. and set up branches at
Vienne, at Lyons, to which I shall return below, and probably at
Narbonne and other centres. In other words, Italian producers made
determined efforts to decentralize production. The only possible expla-
nation is in terms of a reorganization of the global trade in Italian
produce. Why then did their workshops so quickly stop production, in
favour of those of Montans and La Graufesenque?

The evidence of amphorae is even more difficult to interpret. Up until
about 30 B.C., wine, mostly Italian, was transported in amphorae of the
type known as Dressel . A large number of shipwrecks loaded with
these containers have been located and huge numbers of amphorae,
sometimes hundreds of thousands, have been found in excavations of
settlements, of mines and of what might be termed market-oppida, that is
central places from which goods were redistributed. One site near
Toulouse has produced enormous quantities. Dressel 1 amphorae were
replaced around 30-20 B.c. by amphorae of a different shape and capacity
termed Dressel 2-4. Both the number of wrecked ships which trans-
ported them along the southern coast of Gaul and the number of finds in
excavations on land show a dramatic drop in the number of amphorae.
Far fewer Dressel 2~4 amphorae, in other words, arrived in Gaul than
Dressel 1 containers. Why? It may be that Italian wine was transported in
new kinds of containers, such as do/ia or barrels. Some wrecks are now
known in which dofia, huge pottery vessels, made up the major part of
the cargo, implying that the wine would be decanted into other
containers later on. Barrels, on the other hand, leave no archaeological
trace. It has also been recently discovered that some kilns in Gaul
produced not only the local styles of amphorae (called Gauloise
amphorae) but also imitations of Italian and Spanish vessels. We do not
know whether these were produced to carry trans-shipped Italian and
Spanish wines or local vintages.

So the thirty or forty years following the imposition of the pax
Augusta saw a number of separate developments. Archaeology can only
shed light on some aspects of the picture and the result often seems
contradictory and disorganized. But a very tentative synthesis can be
built up from this evidence.

Most importantly, agricultural practice did not undergo any sudden

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

480 13d. GAUL

transformation. It takes time to improve soils and introduce new crops
like vines and olives. The changes do not, in any case, become important
until the middle of the first century and even then were not dramatic in
scale: Narbonensis never became a major wine- or oil-producing region,
far from it.

Trade, on the other hand, was transformed. The best explanation
proposed for the dramatic fall in the number of Italian amphorae is a
sociological one. The Augustan reorganization had put an end to the
Celtic tradition of great banquets given by the chiefs, who were
encouraged to engage in euergetistical benefactions instead of making
gifts of food and drink. All the same a great deal of traffic passed through
Narbonensis, some following the Rhone valley to Vienne and Lyons,
other goods going via Narbonne to Toulouse and Bordeaux. A number
of different trade routes were created. The pottery producers of Montans
were linked to Toulouse and so, no doubt, to the Atlantic seaways, while
La Graufesenque was more closely tied to Languedoc, where its
products were distributed along with other commodities.

The most astonishing discovery of recent years has been made at
Vienne. The city straddled the Rhone and recent excavations there have
uncovered warehouses (horrea) covering an afea that is enormous
compared with that of others known from the Roman world. The
surface area, excluding any additional storeys, is 50,000 square metres,
more than double the size of those at Ostia. The structures date from the
reign of Tiberius or Claudius. Even making allowance for the chance of
excavation (and we know Ostia well), the capacity of this amount of
storage space is phenomenal. How should these finds be interpreted?
Were the goods stored in these warehouses intended for the Gaulish
interior, for Britain or Switzerland or for the garrisons on the /imes? Or
were they destined for the Mediterranean, and in particular for Rome? If
so they could be stores for the annona. The two hypotheses are equally
plausible, nor are they mutually incompatible.

Archaeological evidence privileges commerce above all, and we must
be aware of this source of bias. All the same, there can be no doubt that
some towns in Narbonensis were important centres of redistribution in
the first century A.D. and that trade intensified both with Comata and
with the Mediterranean world. But much more important to the civitas,
were relations between a city and its own rural hinterland, and it was this
relationship which played a formative role in the development of the
province.

4. Urbanization

Unlike many of the areas conquered by Rome, southern Gaul hada long
tradition of nucleated settlement, which had been accentuated over the

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GALLIA NARBONENSIS 481

previous two hundred years. Settlements were medium sized, on average
about 3 hectares in area, with populations in the -hundreds or less
commonly the thousands, consisting of the peasant cultivators of nearby
fields together with some artisans and members of the elite. Some
principles of urban organization are suggested by the ramparts, town
planning and main streets revealed by the recent excavation of sites such
as Entremont, Nages, Lattes, Ambrussum and Ensérune. The public
buildings are mysterious in nature, consisting of porticoes decorated
with sculpted reliefs. Domestic structures consist of a mixture of one- or
two-room houses and some larger buildings arranged around little
courtyards, sometimes with a second storey. Some settlements, under
the influence of Marseilles and her outposts, may already have developed
‘proto-urban’ features. Impressive circuit walls and towers that domi-
nated the landscape as did that of Nimes, built in the second half of the
third century and later transformed into the famous Tour Magne, may
have been symbols of this new urban pride.

Urban archaeology has recently contributed to the debate by demon-
strating examples of settlement continuity, that may be set against the
picture of great Roman foundations ex nibilo proposed in standard
theories. It is true that no major pre-Augustan levels have yet been found
on the sites of the Roman towns of Fréjus and Orange, but they have
been found in the vicinity and in the case of most towns, pre-Roman
levels are attested on the same site. Excavations have recently demon-
strated this for Béziers, Nimes and Arles. Other sites conform, in general
terms, to the picture Strabo paints of Vienne:*2 the site was transformed
from a simple village (at least by the standards of a Mediterranean
observer) into the city inhabited by the Allobrogian elite.

In fact, the Augustan reorganization replaced medium-sized centres
based on limited territories with much larger urban sites. This was botha
result of the processes of colonization and aftributio described above and
also one of its objectives. The oppida (the fortified villages) seem to have
been abandoned fairly rapidly, although some traces of subsequent
occupation are occasionally discovered and some new villages were sited
at the base of the abandoned hilltop sites. But cities like Narbonne, Arles
and Vienne grew very fast. Vienne is a case in point. Recent excavation
has shown that in Saint-Romain-en-Gal and Sainte-Colombe, the dis-
tricts located on the right bank of the Rhone comprising residential
areas, artisans’ workshops and large-scale public works, occupation
began not in the late first century A.D., as had previously been thought,
but at the end of the last century B.c.

Some towns did develop more slowly, it is true. The original town
plan laid out for Fréjus covered about 50 hectares, and it took time to fill
in the area north of its decumanus. Large areas of Vaison-la-Romaine were

32 Strab. tv.1.11 (185—6C).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

482 13d. GAUL

never built on in antiquity. The forum of Aix-en-Provence was not built
until the end of the first century a.p. But the scale of all these towns is
quite different to anything that had gone before. The original area
planned for towns like Arles and Fréjus was at least 50 hectares in extent,
while in the case of towns like Nimes, Orange and Vienne it could exceed
200 hectares. Whether or not the town was enclosed by a rampart, its
extent is defined by the locations of the cemeteries that surrounded it.
Marseilles, the largest pre-Roman city in the area, had never covered
more than 50 hectares, while its outposts like Olbia, Antibes and Agde
were less than 5 hectares in area. Clearest indication of all is the
unprecedented scale of the public works involved: sharp reliefs were
terraced and land prone to subsidence was banked up and drained.

The urbanization of the south was not just a product of the
institutional linkages created between social mobility, the rise of local
elites and urban lifestyles. Those links would not have been enough on
their own, and an important part was played by encouragement of all
sorts, for example of the kind that Tacitus describes being given in
Britain.33 The lead might be given by prominent Romans like Agrippa,
but the most important example was set by the emperors, either through
the gifts they gave from their own resources to sponsor large public
works or else through incentives, the details of which are unclear, but
may have included tax exemptions. So, for example, an inscription on the
Augustan gate at Nimes tells us that the emperor himself had provided
the city with walls and gates (muros portasque).*4

The early date at which huge monumental programmes were begun in
honour of the imperial cult and in particular of Augustus, has only just
become clear. The most striking example is Nimes, where the hillside of
Mont-Cavalier provided the setting for an Axugusteum, comprising a
complex of sanctuaries, temples, theatres and gardens, grouped around a
spring and marked out by the Tour Magne. The forum, in the town
below, was aligned on the same axis and formed a counterweight to the
sanctuary, including as its most impressive monument the Maison
Carrée, a temple to Gaius and Lucius Caesar, the Leaders of the Youth. It
would also be possible to reconstruct in the heart of towns like Vienne,
Arles and Glanum, huge fora where the public space was surrounded by
temples, the porticoes of which rested on cryptoporticoes, by basilicas,
by administrative buildings and so on. Theatres, too, are often early in
date.

The power of the imperial cult had sociological, monumental and
financial implications. The city constituted the fullest expression of a
well-ordered and magnificent universe, the safety of which was guaran-
teed by the princeps. It seems symbolic, in this respect, that a marble copy

33 Tac. Agricola xx1. 4 CIL xu 3151.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GALLIA NARBONENSIS 483

of the clipeus virtutis, awarded by the Senate to Augustus in 27 B.C., was
discovered in the cryptoporticus of Arles. The forum of Arles is certainly
one of the oldest in Gaul. Along with the other monuments of the city,
like the theatre and the arch near the Rhone, and the sculptures found
there, it conjures up teams of highly skilled Italian craftsmen working to
make the city into a showpiece of the architectural and artistic Romaniza-
tion of Narbonensis.

The fact that theatres were built so early on, often located, as at Arles
and Orange, in the immediate environs of the forum, and the triumphal
arches built in the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, all show the pre-
eminent role played by the town in symbolizing membership of the
civilized world. The iconography depicts barbarians in chains: there is
no point in trying to identify the barbarians as they are purely generic.
But there are also elements of classical symbolism, emphasizing the
transition from barbarism to civilization, from chaos to order.

Can we go so far as to say that the cities of Narbonensis were so many
perfectly ordered little universes? It is difficult to be sure since no Roman
town in southern Gaul was ‘fossilized’ and preserved from the ravages of
history. Every town has been transformed on numerous occasions since,
in the course of the medieval and modern periods. But it does seem that
the southern towns only conformed to a limited extent, to regular
orthogonal grid plans. In some cases the reason was pre-Augustan
settlement, in others it derived from features of the terrain: that was the
case at Vienne, squeezed between the Rhone and the valley slopes, while
at Nimes a number of different street plans had been laid out since the
Iron Age. Vaison-la~Romain, on the other hand, had a completely
unconstrained development.

Besides, with the passage of time, many towns underwent predictable
changes. At Arles, part of the circuit wall was demolished when the
amphitheatre was built, and at Fréjus, houses spilled over onto the
streets and a section of the walls went out of use to make way for the
entry of an aqueduct. Quite often the construction of new buildings,
bathhouses in particular, disrupted a neighbourhood, and the construc-
tion of the warehouses of Vienne required a huge terrace to be built on
the banks of the Rhone.

The towns must have presented bewildering contrasts. The ruling
classes directed their attention to public areas, which probably absorbed
most of the resources in terms of architectural specialists, prestigious
materials and imported techniques, like opus caementicium. Meanwhile,
other parts of the town continued to use methods of construction
inherited from the pre-Roman period: adobe, dry stone walls and walls
held together with clay. So at Nimes, immediately next to the sanctuary
of the spring, a residential quarter was built almost identical to the kind

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

484 13d. GAUL

of structures found at contemporary oppida in the area. At the same time,
in towns like Vaison and Vienne, huge houses were being built in
foreign styles around courtyards or gardens, but constructed, sometimes
only roughly, out of dry stone walls or wooden panelling. At the Roman
colony of Fréjus, the Augustan and Tiberian houses, perhaps those built
for the colonists, were modest structures, consisting of three rooms built
in front of a courtyard. But throughout Narbonensis, the motifs of
mosaics and wall paintings diffused rapidly. The Second Pompeian Style
appeared briefly at Glanum, but it was the Third Style which captured
the Rhéne valley, transmitting Roman fashions around 15 8.c. Just as in
the case of the economy, then, cultural dynamics, tensions and differ-
ences appear which cannot easily be reduced to the application ofa single
model.

The urbanization of southern France may have been slower and less
uniform than it has often been presented, but all the same it represented
an irreversible transformation in this period. Secondary urban centres
did develop, often arising from pre-Augustan centres. Some, like
Glanum or Die, developed around sanctuaries while others like Uger-
num (modern Beaucaire) grew up at road junctions or at a major
crossing. Yet others developed within huge civitates, the capitals of
which were not central enough to serve all their territory: this was the
case with Grenoble, Annecy and Geneva in the civitas of the Allobroges,
and with the Vocontian towns of Gap and Sisteron. But almost all the
major southern cities, from Toulouse to Antibes, originated as Augus-
tan capitals. Some, notably Narbonne, Arles, Vienne and probably
Orange, already possessed an impressive monumental complement,
including fora, temples, theatres, amphitheatres and sometimes circuit
walls, at the beginning of the first century a.p. The urbanism of other
centres was a little sparser and towns like Vaison, Fréjus and Aix had to
wait until the Flavian period for many of their monuments. But the basic
pattern went back to the reign of Augustus.

The beginnings of urbanization thus provoked a major shift. Inspired
by the emperor or elite members, the rapid expansion of some cities
attracted town-planners, architects, wall-painters and sculptors, each
with their team of specialists and a local workforce. In so far as they
stayed in the cities, they attracted in their turn trade and service
industries. The monuments were not just architecture: they provided the
framework for a new kind of society and a new way of life.

But it is important not to draw a false distinction between town and
country, since all the evidence suggests that the relationship between the
two was an intimate one. Some towns, like Béziers, were surrounded by
rings of villae; nobles are attested living on suburban estates, as the
Domitii did on their lands outside Aix-en-Provence; and town magis-

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GALLIA NARBONENSIS 485

trates and seviri Augustales, priests of the imperial cult usually recruited
from among rich ex-slaves, made dedications in the countryside. The
new lifestyle was one in which the urban elites divided their time
between town and country. Perhaps that is the clearest indication of the
diffusion of Italian manners.

jy. A new culture?

Even though Rome had conquered the provincia in 124-123 B.C., the
Latin language has left no trace, not even in official documents, from
before the time of Caesar.35 In fact, it is not until the Augustan period
that Celtic inscriptions in Greek letters (Gallo-Greek inscriptions) were
replaced by Latin epigraphy. Even in Narbonne, founded in 118 B.C., it is
remarkable that the two oldest inscriptions (CIL x11 43 38 and 4389) only
go back to the end of the last century B.c.

All the same, Latin seems to have spread rapidly from the Augustan
period on. It does not seem so surprising in high society, where it
promoted the rise of famous orators like Domitius Afer from Nimes and
Votenius Montanus from Narbonne, of poets like Varro Atacinus and of
historians like Trogus Pompeius. The elite played an important role in
the development of epigraphy as well, but the phenomenon makes no
sense unless inscriptions could be understood by a reasonable propor-
tion of the population. Probably, like Trimalchio’s friends,* the urban
population could read inscriptions (/itterae /apidariae), just as they could
recognize signatures or trademarks on pottery vessels. If not, it would
have made no sense for a counterfeiter at La Graufesenque to mark his
vases verum vas arretinum, that is ‘genuine Arretine ware’. Furthermore,
Latin graffiti begin to appear scratched on plates and dishes witha stylus,
from the reign of Augustus. Often they just comprise two or three
letters, standing for the owner’s name, but sometimes there are also
phrases written in longhand. One example from Vaison reads Flacci
Nemo Attlerit, or ‘I belong to Flaccus. Let no-one lay a hand on me’. The
handwriting on the famous tallies of kiln firings at La Graufesenque
from around 40 A.D., is identical to handwriting known from Pompeii.
Inscriptions set up by nobles in the depth of the countryside, like the one
at Saint-Vincent-de-Gaujac in the Gard, show the extent to which Latin
had spread even at an early date. The spread of the language and of a
basic written culture, encouraged by the influence of administrative
decisions and public performances, was a major change. As for the
Gaulish language, it no longer appears except as an element in the names
of people and places, or else in very rare graffiti on potsherds.

35 ILS 884. An inscription from Valence that probably refers to a L. Nonius Asprenas.
% Petron. Sat. 58.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

486 13d. GAUL

It is well known that changes in burial customs are an important
component in acculturation processes, so it is particularly interesting to
see the speed with which Roman practices were adopted. Cremation had,
to be sure, been common throughout Transalpina for a long time, but up
until the Augustan period, each particular style of tomb and each variety
of burial rites was restricted to a relatively narrow area, suchas the lower
Rhone valley. Besides, the fact that so few burials are known — less than
200 from Narbonne to Nice from the last two centuries B.c. — suggests
that human remains were disposed of informally, in some unknown
manner. But from the time of Augustus, cemeteries appear on the
outskirts of towns, along the roads, with tombs organized and ordered
in a hierarchy of mausolea, groups of chambers and individual graves,
marked by headstones and scattered within a wide area, which from a.D.
so was usually enclosed. At the same time the great mausolea came to
serve as landmarks, while the smaller graveyards fitted neatly into the
centuriated landscape, as they did at Augusta Tricastinorum, Saint-Paul-
Trois-Chateaux. Some regional variations remained but major changes
were attested by the grave goods, by the design of the tombs and by the
presence of ustrina. The sculptural decoration of tombs so strongly
recalls Italian models, that some have even suggested that as early as the
last century B.c., teams of sculptors toured Gaul, offering the nobility
sepulchres worthy of their status. Tombs like the mausoleum of the Iulii
at Glanum would represent the most prestigious of their creations. But
irrefutable evidence of Italian influence is perhaps better provided by
more common examples, the fragments of small monuments from
Narbonne, Fréjus and Arles, and by the first Latin epitaphs.

Finally, the imperial cult. There is no evidence for its official
inauguration in the province comparable to the evidence available from
the East, or, in the West, from Tarraco. But some inscriptions from
Nimes suggest that from 25 B.c. it existed as part of the sanctuary of the
Spring, the monumentalization of which began between 20 and Io B.c.
Two temples were dedicated to Rome and Augustus at Glanum around
the same date, while the Maison Carrée at Nimes, the temple of Augustus
at Vienne, the portraits of Augustus, his relatives and his successors all
combine to give the impression that cult appeared early and was
performed with enthusiasm, at least in the more dynamic cities.

Narbonne, in particular, contributes notably to the record of the
imperial cult. Around 25 B.c. a private individual dedicated an altar to
the Pax Axgusti, two other inscriptions show a very early example of the
worship of the Lares Axgsti,>7 and then there is the famous altar
recording the eternal vow to the numen of Augustus made in A.D. 11 by

37 See above, n. 34.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

TRES GALLIAE 487

the plebs Narbonensium, those citizens who did not belong to the
municipal ordo, setting up an altar in the forum and a ceremony enacted
five times a year.

The institutions set up as part of the imperial cult, like the flaminate
and, from Tiberius, the severi Augustales, who are very prominent in
Narbonne and in Nimes, played an important role in promoting social
cohesion. The cult provided the occasion for numbers of lavish acts of
euergetism and for ceremonies which united the population of each state
and encouraged it to engage in rivalry with its neighbours. The
importance of the civitas cults of the emperor confirms the view that a
provincial cult organization was not set up until much later, under
Vespasian.

The new political framework had been rapidly put in place: by the reign
of Tiberius, at the latest, collegiate magistracies of the Roman type were
installed in every civitas except in the allied city of the Vocontii. All
Roman citizens in the province were granted the right to stand for
magistracies in Rome in a.p. 14. Public monuments, Italian-style houses
and an army of statues had begun to invade the squares, the roads and the
cemeteries. Thousands upon thousands of families, mostly from Italy,
had settled in the course of several colonizations. The urban centres, the
civitas capitals, had supplanted the old oppida and traditional feasts had
been replaced by Roman style public euergetism. The countryside had
been redivided, many of the fields had been redistributed and even the
crops growing in them were gradually changing. There can be no doubt
that the changes wrought were unprecedented in scale. It is possible to
qualify the picture a little, by pointing out instances of settlement
continuity or the survival of some traditional technique, or by showing
that these transformations are less marked in the mountainous regions
lying behind the great plains of the Mediterranean littoral and the Rhone
valley. But the extent of the transmutation cannot be denied. Pliny’s
phrase, Italia verius quam provincia, continues to be confirmed by more and
more illustrations. No surprises there: after all, he knew more about it
than we do.

III TRES GALLIAE°8

Gallia Comata, which had been organized as a single province since
Caesar, was divided into three by Augustus, probably in 27 B.c. Several
passages of Strabo show that this was the period at which the Loire and
the Pyrenees were fixed as Aquitania’s final boundaries. The same did

% In memory of Edith Wightman. » Strab. 1v.1.1 (176—7c); 1v.3.1 (191-2¢); Iv-4.3 (196-7¢).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

488 13d. GAUL

not apply to Belgica or Lugdunensis, which ran east—west in parallel.
Belgica included all the peoples bordering the Channel and the North
Sea, while Lugdunensis grouped together those who lived ‘in the central
plains’ as far south as the courses of the Loire and the upper Rhone. One
boundary that survived from this initial organization was the distinction
between the military districts of Germania Inferior and Germania
Superior, which corresponded to the boundary between Belgica and
Lugdunensis. At some point, perhaps at the beginning of Tiberius’
reign, the system was reorganized and Belgica was allocated the north
east of Gaul, and Lugdunensis acquired the remainder.

These changes show how the provincial organization was, to begin
with, fairly arbitrary and based on very rudimentary geographical
knowledge. The aim was simply to create three provinces of roughly the
same size. The adaptions made to the initial plan show the importance
assumed by the Rhine frontier and problems with the Germans after 27
B.c. So much, at any rate, for those theories that saw these divisions as
designed in part to separate the three most powerful peoples of the late
Iron Age, the Arverni, the Sequani and the Aedui, into different
provinces. Nor is it certain that Reims, which Strabo cites as capital of
Belgica, retained this position after the reorganization. Lyons was
capital of Lugdunensis, but we are not even sure of the identity of the
provincial capitals of Belgica and Aquitania. The latter may have been
ruled from Saintes, then Poitiers and perhaps, later on, from Bordeaux.
Nor is the number of civitates any more certain, since the texts disagree,
varying between sixty and sixty-four, and the situation in southern
Aquitania is hedged with difficulties. Most of our sources do say that
these civitates occupied the territories of late Iron Age groups. The
exceptions to this general rule are the Bituriges Vivisci, who may have
split off from the Bituriges Cubi who lived around Bourges, ancient
Avaricum, and migrated to the mouth of the Garonne in the second half
of the last century B.c.; the Tricasses of the region of Troyes (Augusto-
bona) who may have been divided from the Senones by Augustus and
finally the Silvanectes, whom Claudius separated from the Suessiones.*!

Three balanced provinces, then, each containing powerful peoples
with strong traditions and fertile lands. It might be expected, then, that
they would undergo parallel developments, especially since the unbe-
lievable wealth of Gaul was one of the recurrent clichés of both literature
and official discourse at Rome.‘2 But the image presented to us by
archaeological evidence stresses sharp differences between them.

40 Strab. 1v.3.5 (1940). ‘1 See above, n. 5.
e.g. Dio tix.22; Tac. Aan. x1.23; Hist. 1.51 and 1v.74; Suet. Ner. 40.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

TRES GALLIAE 489

1. The impact of events

It is only possible to guess at a few of the consequences of the Gallic War
and of Caesar’s policy. Tens of thousands were killed or taken prisoner
and reduced to slavery, and many chieftains and their relatives saw their
wealth diminished or even confiscated in order to enrich those who had
supported Caesar within their own tribes or abroad. Seeing as the city of
Massilia*3 and individual Allobroges** had been given land and the
revenues (vectigalia) of lands in the interior, how much more did the new
Iulii of Gallia Comata stand to gain in the way of responsibilities,
honours, up to and including membership of the Senate of Rome, and
riches of all kinds. This redistribution of power and wealth explains the
strong personal bonds established between the new Gallic chiefs and the
dictator, and their willingness to join him when he summoned them
nominatim on the outbreak of the civil war.45 His more general policies,
after all, had been moderate: the tribute imposed had been a light one, the
integrity of tribal territories had been respected and no colonies had been
imposed, except for Noviodunum among the Helvetii.

Caesar’s death had given rise to fears in Rome of a ¢umultus Gallicus. It
never happened, but in the following months Cicero’s letters show first
L. Munatius Plancus, the governor of Gallia Comata, and then Decimus
Brutus trying to win over the principes Galliae, although with what
promised incentives we do not know. After those events, our sources
only contain short references to disturbances. Unrest in 39-38 B.c.47 was
the reason for Agrippa’s mission to Gaul, where we know he defeated
the Aquitani*® but also had to cross the Rhine.*? Was this a general
uprising or just local outbreaks of unrest? Most likely the only regions
affected were the Pyrenees, where M. Valerius Messala also campaigned
shortly after 30 B.c.,5° and the north east, where the names of the Morini,
the Suebi and the Treveri are recorded. Reports of triumphs ex Gallis or
ex Gallia do not imply victories over all the peoples of Gaul. Augustus
finally put a stop to the disturbances endemic among the Aquitani when
he campaigned in the Pyrenees in 13 B.c. Sorting out the troubles on the
Rhine was to necessitate rather more effort.

The problems in the north east and the south west explain the
planning and construction of the road system described by Strabo5! and
attributed to Agrippa. The intention was to construct two lines of
communications starting from Lyons, one leading to the Rhineland and

43 Caes. BCiv. 1.35. Caes. BCiv. 111.59.

45 BCiv. 1.39: ‘ex omnibus civitatibus nobilissimo et fortissimo quoque evocato’.
% Cic. Aft. xiv.1. “7 App. BCiv. v.75.318. 48 App. BCw. v.92.386.

49 Dio xtviit.4g. © Tib. 1.7.11. 51 Strab. 1v.6.11 (208c).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

490 13d. GAUL

the north and the other going to Aquitaine, in the old, pre-Augustan
sense of the area south of the Garonne. The plan for these two strategic
routes, designed for troops coming from Italy, must have been fixed at a
fairly early date, perhaps during Agrippa’s first term in Gaul between 4o
and 37 8B.c. They required engineering works, in particular bridges, and
must have absorbed considerable time, resources and manpower,
perhaps encouraging the growth of some towns in the process.

One of the most important Roman actions in Gaul before the reign of
Augustus was the foundation of Lyons (cf. above, p. 469-70). The
founder, L. Munatius Plancus, established Raurica in the same year,
which was to become Augusta Rauricorum, modern Augst in Switzer-
land. But if Augst had been a strategic colony, which is far from certain,
it soon fell behind Lyons, which in only a few years acquired a key role,
as the linchpin of the Agrippan road system, then as capital of
Lugdunensis, the location of a mint and of the federal sanctuary of the
Three Gauls.

The main events of Augustus’ reign, except for those in Aquitaine,
centred on the Germanies and the eastern frontier, where the troops
were concentrated. Does this imply that the rest of the country was
completely pacified? In the absence of any literary documentation,
various scholars have argued that the distribution of Arretine ware or
concentrations of Gallic coinage struck in this period indicate the
presence of Roman troops. But the theory is completely untenable.
Several military installations have been found, at Aulnay in Saintonge, at
Mirebeau near Dijon and at Arlaines and other sites on an axis linking
Reims, Soissons and Amiens. But the chronology of these sites is
unclear, perhaps Tiberian or even much later. All the evidence suggests
that the pax Augusta reigned in the Three Gauls, despite the censuses
carried out in 27 and 12 B.c. and then in a.p. 14 and despite the (probably
exaggerated) administrative abuses of characters like C. Iulius Licinus
around 16 B.c.52 The theory based on the excavation of Stradonitz in
Bohemia, that numbers of Gauls went into voluntary exile in 12 B.C. to
follow Maroboduus,°3 whose kingdom collapsed in a.p. 19, probably
exaggerates the significance of the finds.

The major historical event recorded in the first century a.p. is the
revolt of A.D. 21, described by Tacitus® and, in a few lines, by Velleius
Paterculus.55 Tacitus’ account is very romantic in flavour. Two descen-
dants of the most noble families of the Gauls gather together a motley
crew of criminals and debtors in secret meetings. The Andecavi of
Angers and the Turones of Tours are the first to rise up but are easily
crushed. Iulius Florus with the Treviri, and Iulius Sacrovir with the
Aedui, armed as best they can, are defeated in their turn, again without
any difficulty. Both Velleius and Tacitus point out that ‘the Roman

52 Dio Ltv.19.6. 53 Vell. Pat. 11.129. 34 Ann. 111.40-47. 55 Vell. Pat. 11.129.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

TRES GALLIAE 491

people heard that they had won before they heard they were at war’. But
while Velleius tells the story in praise of Tiberius, Tacitus makes it the
basis of complaints, that the Senate of Rome had been kept in ignorance
and that the revolt had been caused by the heavy burden of taxation, by
usury and by the high-handed behaviour of the governors.

The significance of this episode has been over-estimated by historians
of Gaul. Quite apart from the tendency to invoke it to explain
archaeological destruction layers, for example burnt layers in the east, all
sorts of sociological inferences have been drawn from these incidents.
Either it represents the last revolt of the egustes, the elite created by the
Gallic War whose place was then taken by a new ruling class of artisans
and merchants, or else, on the contrary, it represents an attempt to seize
power from those equites whose sons were taken hostage by Iulius
Sacrovir when he found them in the schools of Autun. But these
interpretations are unacceptable: Tacitus himself relates the activities in
A.D. 69 of Gallic aristocrats who remain as obsessed as ever by privilege
and status.5

In fact, the story of Florus and Sacrovir clearly shows just how
difficult these two nobles found it to stir up support among their peers.
With the help of the hostages captured from Autun, they were just able
to secure their neutrality, but the Gallic ruling classes were thoroughly
implicated in Roman structures and only a tiny minority took up arms.

The reign of Claudius was marked by renewed activity on the Rhine
frontier. Two projects seem to have been important, first the cutting of a
canal between the old Rhine and the Meuse and second, in a.p. 50, the
foundation of Cologne, the colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium. The
conquest and colonization of the south of Britain must have stimulated
trade between Britain and Gaul, especially with the west: Claudius’
energy and influence were felt in every sphere. New roads were built,
towns expanded and secondary urban sites were set up including
Martigny in Switzerland (Forum Claudii) and Aime in the Tarentaise.
Euergetistical construction of civic monuments was actively encour-
aged. The emperor’s relationship with the Gallic elite is expounded in
the speech he made to the Senate5? proposing that Gauls who were
Roman citizens should be allowed access to the Senate and to stand for
magistractes in Rome. Opposition was bitter, and in the first instance
only the Aedui, Rome’s oldest allies, were allowed to enjoy. this
dispensation. The anecdote shows how differently the Three Gauls were
regarded, in senatorial circles, from Narbonensis, the inhabitants of
which had possessed this right from A.D. 14.

Apart from a reference to a census,>8 only a few anecdotes survive

56 Tac. Hist. 1v.68—9 cf. above, p. ooo. 3? Tac. Ann. x1.24; CIL xu 1668.
38 Tac. Ann. x1v.46.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

492 13d. GAUL

about Gaul in Nero’s reign. A statue of Mercury was built among the
Arverni and there was a fire in Lyons in A.D. 65.

Some general observations emerge from this brief survey. For most of
the period, the major events centred on the north east where tens of
thousands of troops were stationed, an equivalent population, in ancient
terms, to that of a number of cities. The troops acted as a huge economic
magnet but also a political magnet in so far as emperors and members of
the imperial household visited the area frequently. The other region
affected by military activities at this period was Aquitaine, in the narrow
sense of the area south of the Garonne. Agrippa’s road system, decided
on very early but constructed over a long period of time, accorded
importance to both the north east and the south west. Finally, regardless
of misinterpretations of the events of A.D. 21, the strong links established
by Caesar between the ‘Julian’ aristocracies and the imperial power
showed no signs of weakening.

2. Innovation and inertia

Attempts to assess the impact of the conquest and of the imposition of
new structures on Gaul run up against a major problem. On none of the
sites that were to develop into Gallo-Roman towns, are there any
archaeological levels datable to the period between the end of the Gallic
Wars and about 20 B.c., oreven later. The most striking examples are the
three colonies founded by Caesar and Plancus. At Nyon, the colonia Julia
Equestris, nothing has been found dating from before 15 B.c., at Augst,
Augusta Raurica, the earliest levels date from the end of the reign of
Augustus and at Lyons the first traces apart from defensive ditches,
perhaps those of Plancus’ camp, date from between 30 and 20 B.C.
Dendrochronology has dated the first encampment at Petrisberg in Trier
to 30 B.C., but there is no contemporary material. The few exceptions are
often ambiguous. There have been a few sporadic finds at Reims, where
two ditched and banked enclosures have been found, remains of
settlement are known from Metz, thousands of Gallic coins have been
found at Langres and the excavations of ‘ma Maison’ at Saintes in the
south west, have produced some sherds of 40-30 B.C.

Should we conclude that the first towns took their time to appear? In
fact, the argument ex sil/entio should be distrusted for two reasons. The
first reason is that urban archaeology is a relatively recent innovation in
France. The second is that, when it comes to these early periods, the
stratigraphic frame of reference depends on finds from Roman military
camps, and the earliest camps to have been excavated date from after 19
B.c. Neuss is dated after 19 8.c., Dangstetten from 15 to 9 B.Cc., Rédgen
bet ween 12 and 9 B.c., Oberaden between 11 and 9 B.c., Haltern from 7

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

TRES GALLIAE 493

B.C. to A.D. 9 and so on. The result is that archaeologists are often unable
to date material that is after 50 B.c. but before 20 B.c., especially if the
material does not consist of imported pottery. It is quite likely, then, that
research will advance rapidly in this area, but for the moment it is only
possible to stress the slowness of developments.

The birth of urbanism can only be traced from the Augustan period,
and then only from the end of his. reign, since almost every town site
produces sherds of Arretine ware and then of early Gaulish serra sigillata.
It is important to distinguish several categories among these sites. Fora
start we must set to one side the cases of Lyons and of Autun. Lyons
grew enormously from zo B.c. onwards. Although it was doubtless
unfortified, the hilltop of Fourviére was covered with settlement, a
theatre was built there with stone imported from quarries in the south, in
particular from Glanum, and there was probably a forum too. Craft
workshops developed on and around the hilltop, and branches of the
great pottery manufacturers of Arezzo, Pisa and the north of Italy, were
set up there to supply the Roman military camps. From the Augustan
period they even imitated amphorae of Dresselz—4 type and several other
varieties. Lyons became a distribution centre for Mediterranean pro-
ducts including wine, olive oil and fish preserves en route to Switzerland,
the Moselle valley and the Rhineland, not to mention central and western
Gaul. After the federal sanctuary was set up at Condate in 12 B.c.,
euergetism increased and more and more monuments were built, like the
amphitheatre, given by aristocrats from Saintes in A.D. 19. Lyons became
a political, religious and economic metropolis adorned with a striking
array of monuments. The first houses were built of wooden panels, had
several rooms, floors made ‘en terrazzo’ and wall-paintings inspired
directly by Roman fashions.

The case of Autun is rather different. The late Iron Age capital of the
Aedui had been Bibracte, mentioned several times by Caesar who had
stayed there. It was located on the summit of Mont Beuvray, some 20 km
from Autun. Excavations in the nineteenth century, which have recently
been resumed, uncovered public zones, a wide variety of private
housing, including some huge houses of Roman design, and artisan
quarters, all surrounded with a massive rampart. The whole town was
moved to Autun, and the population transfer must have been fairly rapid
as the finds from Bibracte hardly go beyond the turn of the millennium.
The name Augustodunum expresses Augustus’ desire to bestow his
personal favour on Rome’s oldest allies. Plenty of other evidence shows
his favour in action: Autun was surrounded by the only circuit wall built
in the Three Gauls in this period, crowned with towers and adorned with
four ornamental gates, enclosing an area of some 200 hectares. Autun
was also the home of the famous ‘universities’ for young aristocrats from

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

494 13d. GAUL

Fig. 9. Autun: town-plan.

all over Gaul, and of the school for gladiators. Built from scratch with a
regular orthogonal street plan from the first, Autun was the showpiece
city. The city drew its livelihood from the elite who lived within its walls,
but drew their wealth from the land. Craftsmen were attracted by the
city’s position at a natural crossroads, and Autun probably had great
religious prestige, as the sacred quarter based around the temple of Janus
shows. But the town never really took much part in the great commercial

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

TRES GALLIAE 495

movements which were the lifeblood of Macon and Chalon. The early
prominence of the city derived from a desire for an urban lifestyle, based
on the integration of the elite and on practical assistance from the Roman
authorities, perhaps in the form of tax exemptions or gifts.

Other towns in Gaul had very different experiences. In Switzerland,
orthogonal grids were laid out at the very start, and filled in little by little
by buildings constructed of wood and earth. Spaces were reserved for
public use, but monuments were rare: Augst was partly enclosed by a
circuit wall and had a theatre and Nyon had a building of basilica-type. It
is possible that the colonial status of Augst and Nyon exerted an
influence on other centres like Avenches.

The road network must also have played a part. For some time now,
excavations in the towns on the main route to the south west have been
revealing Augustan layers and Augustan street grids. These are towns
like Limoges and Clermont-Ferrand, the Roman names of which alone
suggest an early origin.5? Recent discoveries at Feurs, Roman Forum
Segusiavorum, support this picture, revealing an Augustan street plan, a
forum dated to around a.p. 10-20 and an inscription attesting a wooden
theatre. So although the unrest in Aquitaine had been settled fairly
early on, the route to the south west continued to promote urbanism.

The same applied in the north east and the east. Langres, Metz, Trier
and Amiens all grew up at key points on the road system. So too did less
important centres like Bavai, or nearby sites like Paris. When the road
junctions were also on navigable rivers, towns developed even earlier
and became even more important. For example, Amiens had a town grid
based on the pes drusianus, and its wattle and daub buildings covered an
area of 4o hectares. Trier, Metz and Reims were probably broadly
similar. Craft activity is well attested but no sign of public monuments.

Almost everywhere else is it difficult to reconstruct the earliest stages
of town life. The best known of the towns of the south west is Saintes,
Mediolanum Santonum. The town is famous for the family of Iulii
descended from the Gaul Epotsoviridus, whose great-grandson C.
lulius Rufus built the amphitheatre of the Three Gauls at Condate, and in
A.D. 18 of 19 put up the arch of Germanicus in his own city. But the
Augustan town itself is haphazardly laid out, with tiny winding streets
and both houses and workshops built of wattle and daub and only 20 to
30 square metres in size.

At Bordeaux, the late Iron Age ‘emporium’ covered an area of at most

5° A number of Gallic towns had names beginning in Augusto-, for example, Autun, Clermont,
Limoges, Troyes, Bayeux and Senlis; in Caesaro-, for example, Tours and Beauvais; or in lulio-, for
example, Lillebonne and Angers. In other cases the element Augusta was followed by the name of
the people, as in the cases of Trier, Saint-Quentin, Soissons and Auch. The names might have been
granted as a favour at any point during the Julio-Claudian period.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

496 13d. GAUL

5 or G6 hectares on a promontory surrounded by soft ground on the banks
of the Garonne. The Roman conquest had no impact on the site until the
beginning of the Christian era. At the end of Augustus’ reign and the
beginning of Tiberius’ the city expanded outwards to cover some 12 to
15 hectares, and the first traces of regular town-planning and Roman
building techniques appeared, but the main period of expansion did not
start until the middle of the first century. Much the same sort of sequence
could be described for a number of towns, from Poitiers and Périgueux
to Avenches and Trier. As for Brittany, Normandy and the Loire valley,
all that can be said is that the remains are very slight.

To put it another way, perhaps we should imagine many of the civitas
capitals of the Three Gauls as sparsely populated centres, only roughly
planned out, with a few clusters of public buildings, maybe wooden ones
at that, a little trade going on, a few craftsmen and houses built in much.
the same way as in the late Iron Age.

Epigraphy and architectural elements can be used to elaborate the
picture a little, although there again the evidence concentrates in
Switzerland, in the north east and in the south west. At Langres, a text
refers to a temple of Augustus vowed by Drusus in 9 B.c. The Princes of
the Youth received epigraphic or monumental honours in Lyons, Sens,
Trier and Reims, where there was a cenotaph. In 4 B.c. Bavai, Bagacum,
acclaimed the adventus of Tiberius. The columns and capitals found at
Saintes and Périgueux follow Roman models from the end of the last
century B.c., and in Switzerland sculpture was made and imported from
the reign of Augustus. It is worth bearing in mind that many buildings,
including basilicas, theatres and amphitheatres, may well have been built
in wood, on the lines of those we know of from the military camps, and
so would have left no trace. All the same, with the odd exception, the
Three Gauls had not produced a thick crop of towns in the Augustan
period. The contrast with the situation in Narbonensis is striking.

The forty years between the accession of Tiberius and the death of
Claudius corresponded, in most of the towns discussed above, to a
period of growth and monumentalization. The street plans were
systematized and in many places, especially in Switzerland, masonry
began to be used. The first trunk roads were built, like that linking
Saintes, Poitiers and possibly Paris. Amphitheatres were built at Saintes,
perhaps at Senlis as well, and in Périgueux, where it took the family of
the Auli Pompeii, whose first member was called Dumnotus, three
generations to complete the task. Public baths were constructed,
aqueducts were built as at Bordeaux, and houses were bigger and
decorated with wall-paintings based on the Pompeian Third Style. At
Lyons, excavations at the site of le Verbe Incarné show that the plateau
of la Sarra was levelled to allow the building of a temple, surrounded

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

TRES GALLIAE 497

with porticoes resting on cryptoporticoes, and dedicated to the imperial
family. Also at Lyons, a monumental fountain, supplied with water by a
new aqueduct, was dedicated to Claudius and a major programme of
reclamation made the tongue of land between the Rhéne and the Sadéne
habitable and suitable for a trading district.

New towns appeared and others expanded to become real urban
centres most of all as a result of greatly improved communications,
affecting many regions but especially the west. Claudius’ reign witnessed
large scale road building projects, especially in the Loire valley, but also
supplementing road networks in the north, the centre, Brittany, Nor-
mandy and elsewhere. The conquest of Britain stimulated development
all along the Atlantic strip. This was also the period of the great
expansion of Poitiers and Bordeaux, as well as of the growth of Tours,
Bourges, Angers, Rennes as well as of many other centres which would
not all become quite so successful.

Why was it that urbanization was such a slow and often such a limited
process in the Three Gauls? The Celtic oppida do not seem to have been
intensively occupied for very long after the conquest, in fact one of the
most recent contributions of archaeological research to the debate has
been to show the early origins of many of the secondary urban centres
which comprised the closely packed network of sites usually termed vic7.
Some originated when populations moved down from hilltop sites to the
neighbouring plains, others developed from indigenous sites of similar
scale which were rarely located on hilltops, despite the famous example
of Alésia, but many seem to have been created ex nihilo. Apart from those
sites that developed around places of pilgrimage, these vici tended to be
located on routes, whether terrestrial or riverine, that had been import-
ant ever since the Neolithic period, in other words astride those
communications channels that had organized local life from time
immemorial. Almost everywhere in the Three Gauls these small centres
have produced evidence of craft working, often at quite a sophisticated
level, including bronze and iron working, carpentry, weaving and
pottery production. The small towns had a commercial role, then,
sometimes directed towards a military camp, as in the case of the canabae
of Mirebeau or Strasbourg or Baden in Switzerland, but more often
serving a local catchment area. Early on some of these vici were planned
and acquired some public buildings. Vidy, Lousonna, had a street plan
from 20-10 B.c. and a building with a basilical plan was constructed
there round a.p. 30-40; Alésia and Malain were planned under Augustus
and organized properly under Claudius, Alésia acquiring streets, porti-
coes with fagades, masonry buildings, temples and a square. Some of
these towns were more dynamic than the cities that were the capitals of
their civitates: Orléans, for example, grew much faster than Chartres. The

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

498 134. GAUL

first land divisions discovered by aerial photography show that Three
Gauls did not exhibit the same strong links between cities and their
suburban and rural vi//ae as characterized Narbonensis. Town and villa
relations were much more typically centred on the vici.

Does this mean that, in general, apart from those regions affected by
colonization and perhaps by proximity to Narbonensis, the Gallic
landscape was structured not so much by the new constraints introduced
by Roman rule, but by longer term factors? We need to know more about
these long-term structures before that hypothesis can be assessed and the
notion of ‘tribal survivals’ should be shunned. But it does seem likely
that the influence of the local territories predominated over the impact of
the Roman civitates.

3. Unifying factors

The Latin right had been granted to all communities in Narbonensis in
the Caesarian period, and although some juridical complexities had been
introduced by granting some civitates treaties or Roman citizenship as
privileges, a general principle had been established. In the Three Gauls,
on the other hand, the principle was one of diversity. We can reconstruct
from various sources, and in particular from Pliny, the list of states with
treaties. It comprises the Helvetii, the Carnutes, the Remi, the Aedui and
the Lingones. But it is much less clear which cities were free, (/iberae) and
which exempt from taxation (‘mmunes), and the epigraphic evidence does
not always agree with the literary sources.®! Strabo states that Rome had
granted the Latin right to some Aquitanian peoples, ‘in particular the
Ausci and the Convenae’.® This may have been on the occasion of the
Pyrenean campaigns or possibly it was because the Convenae had once
been included in Gallia Transalpina. Other civitates were granted the
Latin right,® but we do not know when it became widespread. Any
period from the reign of Claudius to the Flavians is possible, but there is
no means of deciding for sure.

An almost complete absence of epigraphy makes it very difficult to
trace the development of governmental institutions within the civitates
with any confidence. A vergobret (magistrate) is mentioned on the coinage
of the Lexovii, whose capital was Lisieux in Normandy, and an
inscription from Saintes reads ‘C. Iulius Marinus, son of C. Iulius
Ricoveringus, of the Voltinian tribe, first [famen] of Augustus, curator
of Roman citizens, quaestor, vergo[{bret]’.°* The early date of this

61 For example the civitas of the Turones is referred to as /ibera by CIL xtmt 3076 and 3077.
62 Strab. 1v.2.2 (190-10).

63 Ac least the allied states were awarded this, to judge from Tac. Ann. x1.23-

CIL xin 1048 and 1074.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

TRES GALLIAE 499

inscription fits in with a graffito found at Saint-Marcel, Indre, ancient
Argentomagus, which reads ‘the vergobret has performed the sacrifice
(vercobretos readdas)’ and which dates to around a.D. 20-30. The Gallic
office of vergobret may have corresponded to the post of praetor, known
from Claudian Bordeaux.® But the name of the office, whether indige-
nous or Romanized, is much less significant than the fact that it refers to
an individual, rather than a collegiate, magistracy. The data are so rare
that no firm conclusions can be drawn from them. All the same Saintes
and Bordeaux were among the most urbanized states of the Three Gauls.
The pride with which the powerful recalled their ancestors is also very
striking. Also from Saintes was C. lulius Rufus who proclaimed his
descent from C. Iulius Otuaneunus, the son of C. Iulius Gedomo, the son
of Epotsoviridus.6* The impression created by the sources, then, is that,
outside the colonies, late Iron Age institutions survived under the cover
of vague Roman terminology, and that the great families of the Julian
aristocracy preserved their superordinate power vis-a-vis their fellow
citizens.

As we have already seen, Roman citizens from the Three Gauls did not
have the right, before the reign of Claudius, to stand for the magistracies
in Rome. But they could gain entry to the senatorial order by imperial
favour. It is surprising that only three senators are known before a.D. 70,
all of them from Aquitaine. The small number of eguifes is also
surprising: we know of only twenty or so examples in the first century
A.D., from the Three Gauls and the Germanies together, only a quarter as
many as are known from Narbonensis. It is as if the greatest ambition of
these magnates was to be elected to the priesthood at the federal
sanctuary at Condate, so winning the highest honour in the Three Gauls
for themselves and their states.

It is difficult to define the exact role played by the federal sanctuary,
and the ceremonies that took place there each year, beginning on 1
August, the date of the fall of Alexandria and the festival of the Genius
Augusti. The events included the worship of the emperor and of Rome,
competitions, and the opportunity for ‘political’ representation, through
the medium of the concilium, the provincial assembly. All the same, the
theory that Celtic traditions had been incorporated into the festival
cannot be rejected out of hand. Occasional accounts of the site suggest
that a sacred grove and a crowd of statues stood alongside the altar and
the amphitheatre, and the organization of the concilium is also peculiar to
Gaul, the chief official being a sacerdos, rather than a flamen, the other
officers being a index, an allectus arcae Galliarum and an inguisitor
Galliarum. The gathering was not an exact copy of the famous Druidical
meetings mentioned by Caesar, but it may have been some sort of

6 CIL x11 $90, 596—Goo. & CIL xi 1036.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

500 13d. GAUL

transmutation of them. The place was different, as were the forms of the
meeting, but important business was transacted there and it was the
occasion for equals to recognize each others’ paramount prestige. The
creation of the Ara Ubiorum for the Germans living west of the Rhine,
and of a conventus at Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges (Lugdunum Conve-
narum) for Aquitanians south of Garonne, also at an early date, showed
the Romans’ willingness and perhaps their need, to perpetuate tra-
ditional annual festivities. Unfortunately there are too few inscriptions
from either the Confluence or the Gallic states to say for certain where
the sacerdotes came from, although we know that the first, elected in 12
B.c., was the Aeduan Julius Vercondaridubnus, and that in the early first
century his successors included the Cadurcan M. Lucterius Sencianus,
probably a descendant of the chief Lucterus who had fought against
Caesar between 52 and 51 B.c., and alsoC. Iulius Rufus from Saintes. The
assembly of the Three Gauls offered Augustus a gold neck-ring, a
torque, that weighed 100 pounds, and it was also the assembly, rather
than the city of Lyons, who welcomed Caligula, who established a
contest in Greek and Latin rhetoric there.6’ The concilium demanded of
the elite that they demonstrated their loyalty to the emperor and their
acceptance of Latin culture and that they indulged in extravagant
euergetism, but most of all it was the premier stage on which aristocrats
paraded their wealth, their prestige and their rivalries. The return of a
new sacerdos to his home state must have been the occasion for triumphal
honours, and more than one wanted to reproduce, ona smaller scale, the
entertainments he had given, and over which he had just presided.

It is necessary to return, once more, to the scarcity of inscriptions. The
usual explanation given is that it represents resistance to the Latin
language, although it may be more a sign of psychological difficulties
surrounding the use of writing, perhaps deriving from the circumstance
that in the late Iron Age the Druids had monopolized writing and it had
therefore never been publicly displayed. On the other hand, Gauls made
a major contribution to the Roman army. Before a.p. 68 they provided
twenty-eight cavalry divisions and seventy-six cohorts, that is to say
about 65 per cent of the auxiliary strength of the western provinces.
Many also served as legionaries: 25 per cent of the inscriptions found in
Gaul, including Narbonensis, from the reigns of Claudius and Nero, are
those of legionaries. The return of substantial numbers of men who had
served for years in the Roman army must have had all sorts of
consequences for both the language and more generally the ‘civilization’
of the Three Gauls.

Assimilation had begun, albeit slowly, not only among the elite but
also among other groups lower down the social scale. The process is

& Sue. Calig. 20.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

TRES GALLIAE gol

often described as being accompanied by extensive economic and
commercial integration, but this is unlikely to have been the case. Recent
numismatic studies have shown a shortage of coin that seems to have
grown progressively more severe until the Flavian period. Local
coinages were accepted at least until the end of the last century B.c., and
after that forgeries multiplied and the countermarks designed to author-
ize money as official were themselves being forged under Claudius and
Nero. The implications are that central government was not concerned
to create an integrated monetary system, nor any real kind of economic
organization. Asa result /aissez-faire predominated, allowing the frontier
regions, where soldiers were paid in cash, to exercise a powerful
attractive force, and permitting the development of profitable barter
with neighbouring ‘barbarians’, the basis of the economy of ports like
Bordeaux and perhaps Rézé near Nantes, and of the great centres of
distribution, above all Lyons. Apart from in some cities with special
advantages, then, commerce was not a major force in creating a new mix
of Gauls and Italians. The activities of the elite and the army were much
more important.

Mortuary studies show that cremation was widely used, but also
reveal a number of local peculiarities. Around Lyons, Briord and
Roanne inhumation was none the less important, and it is virtually the
only rite used in some cemeteries along the Seine between Paris and
Rouen, and especially in Paris itself. By contrast, the inhumations found
in the centre-west of France, in Poitou and Saintonge, are those of ‘high
status’ women, buried either in stone sarcophagi or in huge wooden
coffins. These tombs are very rich in grave-goods. In the same way, the
isolated tombs of the Berry, that date to the period between Augustus
and Claudius, contain either inhumations or cremations but also very
rich assemblages of amphorae, ceramic table services, tools, weapons
and bronze objects including wine pourers, bowls, plates and ssmpula.
The same applies to the territory of the Treviri, while in present-day
Belgium, tumuli have been recorded. The aristocracy had evidently not
unanimously adopted Roman customs, and alongside those nobles who
had mausolea built for them at a very early date, like the example from
Faverolles in the civitas of the Lingones, there were others who preferred
to preserve older traditions.

I will not deal with religion here except briefly to summarize the
argument I will develop at greater length in CAH x1. The slender
evidence we have suggests two main lines of inquiry. First, although the
literary evidence tends to focus on the banning and then the suppression
of Druidism, recent excavations are turning up more and more temples
with concentric plans, temples of the type called fanz, constructed on the
sites of pre-Roman shrines. Second, Romanized religious monuments

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

502 13d. GAUL

like the Boatmen’s Pillar put up by the Parisii at Lutecia, juxtapose not
only indigenous deities and Roman gods, but also tend to include some
reference to the emperor. The epithet Augustus appears very frequently
on religious inscriptions, either applied to the god, or associated with
him. This is the clearest indication that the Roman emperor descended
from Caesar was seen in the Three Gauls as a charismatic leader, who
safeguarded peace and unity but also protected the autonomy of those
peoples, even the smallest communities, who worshipped him alongside
their own local gods in order to make him more truly their own.

Compared with other areas incorporated into the Roman empire, the
Tres Galliae stick out like a sore thumb. The Gauls were marked out as
different by their climate, by memories of ancient Gallic invasions and of
Caesar’s war, by their closeness to the Germans, and by their image as
barbarians, possessed of great riches, but indulging in human sacrifice.
Archaeology makes clear just how much rhetoric there was in Claudius’
speech to the Senate, better preserved in CIL xm 1668 than in Tacitus’
rendition. Compared to Narbonensis, so quickly assimilated, the Tres
Galliae seem like a world still resting on Iron Age foundations. Cities
were slow to establish themselves, the aristocracies were reluctant to go
beyond their territorial power bases, and the locality exercised a
determining influence over all spheres of life. But the yeast was already at
work. Gaul now opened onto the outside world, first the Germanies and
then Britain, Gauls were serving in the Roman army, and civilization,
spreading contagiously, was transforming public buildings and private
houses alike. The worship of the emperor was more and more closely
bound up with the power of the leaders of the state, and of its gods.
Claudius, whom Suetonius called ‘the Gallic emperor’ predicted the
future more accurately than he described the present.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 13¢

BRITAIN 43 B.c. TO A.D. 69

JOHN WACHER

I. PRE-CONQUEST PERIOD

Rome’s first formal contact with Britain came with the expeditions of
lulius Caesar in 55 and 54 B.c.! By then, most of the major late Iron Age
migrations from Gaul to Britain had already occurred, although within
Britain much political and cultural movement was still to take place.
Caesar named only six tribes, among which were the Trinovantes and
Cenimagni (Iceni?), with four more unnamed in Kent, and with the
implication of a nameless eleventh, probably the Catuvellauni, ruled by
the leader of the British opposition, Cassivellaunus. Other tribes which
were to play a part in the period between Caesar and Claudius and
immediately thereafter were the Brigantes, Corieltavi, Cornovii, Dum-
nonii, Atrebates and Dobunni in present-day England and the Silures
and Ordovices in Wales. The Atrebates arrived in Britain after the
Caesarian episodes, brought over by their king Commius, who, at first an
ally of Caesar, later unwisely joined the unsuccessful rebellion of
Vercingetorix in Gaul; the Dobunni are usually considered to be an
offshoot of the Atrebates.? The Catuvellauni gradually emerged as the
most powerful tribe in south-east England, occupying an area roughly
equivalent to the kingdom of Cassivellaunus. In addition, the four tribes
which inhabited Kent eventually merged to form the single tribe of the
Cantiaci. Apart from the tribes mentioned by Caesar and some other
literary sources, most of our knowledge of their existence and geogra-
phical positions is gained from detailed study of the coinage which they
minted.3

Caesar’s expeditions, even if they bore no long term success, neverthe-
less made Rome more aware of Britain’s existence. This is partly to be
seen in the greatly increased volume of trade between the island and the
Roman empire, now expanded to the Channel. The trade is mentioned
by Strabo* and attested archaeologically in the numerous goods found
especially on sites in the area north of the lower Thames. Politically and

' Caes. BGall. v. 2 Allen 1961 (B 304) 75-149.

3 Allen 1958 (B 305) 97-308. It must be admitted, however that some modern authorities view
this list of coin distributions with suspicion, e.g. Collis 1971 (B 317) 71-84.

* Strab. tv.5.1-4 (199-201C)

503

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PRE-CONQUEST PERIOD 505

militarily, Caesar left unfinished business in Britain, and Augustus three
times, in 34, 28 and 27 B.c., planned expeditions; all were called off
because of needs elsewhere. Deprived of military conquest, Augustus
aimed at the maintenance of a balance of power between the major tribes,
at first befriending Tincommius, son of Commius of the Atrebates, so as
to balance the waxing strength of the Catuvellauni. But this diplomacy
did not prevent the latter from invading and occupying the territory of
the Trinovantes, an act which was contrary to the terms of the old
Caesarian treaty. It appears to have been quite deliberately timed, ¢. A.D.
10, when Augustus was more than preoccupied with the aftermath of the
Varian disaster in Germany, and it came about through the actions of a
man who was to become the most powerful ruler in Britain before the
Claudian invasion: Cunobelin. Suetonius gave him the title Britannorum
Rex, and he was probably a direct descendant of the great
Cassivellaunus.®

An alternative theory on his origin sees him, however, as a Trinovan-
tian monarch who had gained ascendancy over the Catuvellauni;
certainly his capital was at Camulodunum near modern Colchester, in
Trinovantian territory.6 This view strains the information which we
have beyond logical bounds. The Catuvellauni and not the Trinovantes
were, by implication in Dio’s account of the Claudian invasion,’ the
prime enemy of Rome. By implication also Cunobelin had been their
king. It is extremely unlikely that he would have abandoned his own
tribe’s name in favour of that of an enemy, whether conquered or not.

Despite the apparently anti-Roman bias of some of Cunobelin’s early
actions, he seems to have given a temporary stability to the tribal affairs
of Britain. In Rome’s eyes all was well so long as his deeds were balanced
by the friendly presence, south of the Thames, of its allies the Atrebates.
Unfortunately, following the death of Commius and the accession of his
son, Tincommius, the kingdom was rent by fraternal squabbles, Tin-
commius being ousted by Eppillus, and he in turn by Verica. In each
case, Augustus recognized the successful claimant, despite the appeal of
Tincommius for help towards reinstatement; both Eppillus and Verica
seem to have been acknowledged as client kings.

Cunobelin was not averse to allowing even more flourishing trade to
grow between his kingdom and the empire, since, with its extension to
the sea, he now controlled the lucrative trade routes from the Rhineland
and elsewhere. His anti-Roman attitude also seems to have abated
sufficiently for him to send embassies to Rome, and he may have been
among the British rulers who set up offerings on the Capitol.8 But with
the death of Augustus and the succession of Tiberius, he resumed in the

5 Suet. Calig. 44. § Rodwell 1976 (€ 553) 265-77. 7 Dio tx. 19-22.
8 Strab. 1v.5.3 (zoo-1C).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

506 13é@. BRITAIN 43 B.C.—A.D. 69

next fifteen or so years the expansion of his kingdom, adding the rest of
Kent and penetrating into the middle and upper Thames valley. Pressure
was also applied to the Atrebatic kingdom for the first time and it would
appear that its centre at Calleva now became part of the Catuvellaunian
domain. Tiberius apparently did not react to this provocation, although
it is unlikely that it was carried out without protest to Rome.

Tiberius died in a.p. 37 to be succeeded by Gaius. By then Cunobelin
must have been sinking into old age and he was perhaps losing his grip
on tribal affairs, a factor which was aggravated by the growth to
manhood of his sons. The apparent philo-Roman outlook of one of
them, Adminius, may well have led to his expulsion and flight to Gaius
to support his reinstatement. Gaius was then in Germany and was
persuaded by Adminius that Britain could easily be conquered. Gaius
assembled an army at Boulogne in a.p. 40, but a mutiny prevented it
from sailing; Gaius thereupon called off the enterprise. But the expulsion
of Adminius showed that all was not well among the Catuvellauni, a
situation which was made worse by the death of Cunobelin and the
division of the kingdom between two other sons Caratacus and
Togodumnus.

Ambitious, hot-headed and possibly resentful of Roman influence in
Britain, they set out on a policy of unlimited aggression which led, not
only to the partial, or even total, absorption of the Dobunni, but also to
the overrunning of the Atrebates, forcing their king, Verica, to flee to
Rome for help, and finally to the total alienation of Rome. Verica was a
client king and Roman ally, so that his expulsion could be interpreted as
an insult to Rome, which, if left unavenged, would have called into
question a whole area of foreign policy at a time when Rome very much
relied on client rulers to maintain peace on or near the frontiers. The
situation was, moreover, exacerbated by a demand for Verica’s extradi-
tion and, when this was refused, by aggressive action being taken against
Roman merchants in Britain and possibly even against the coast of Gaul.
Verica’s expulsion, therefore, served as the political vindication for the
direct intervention of Rome in Britain in a.p. 43.

II. THE INVASION AND ITS AFTERMATH

Numerous reasons, apart from that advanced above, have been put
forward to explain Rome’s decision to invade Britain at this precise
juncture. Among them can be listed the military ambition of Claudius,
now emperor after Gaius’ assassination; the prospect of mineral and
other wealth; a surplus of legions on the German frontier after Gaius had
created two more to back his abortive invasion attempt; the final
suppression of druidism, which had been outlawed in Gaul, no doubt

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE INVASION 507

causing many adherents to seek refuge across the Channel. There was
also the question of military strategy; if Britain were not invaded, the
coast of Gaul would require protection from a hostile force controlling
the other side of the Channel. To protect it would mean raising the
strength of the army to dangerous levels in the western mainland of the
empire and no extra territory would be gained to provide its food. If the
same army were placed in Britain it would be safely isolated, with fresh
sources of food and other supplies. Whatever the reasons, Claudius
decided to invade. A force composed of four legions and auxiliaries,
altogether amounting to some 40,000 men, under the command of Aulus
Plautius, until then governor of Pannonia, was assembled at Boulogne.
That part of the Annals of Tacitus which included the account of the
invasion is lost, and for literary evidence we have to rely on the later
account of Cassius Dio,° which is neither exhaustive nor entirely clear in
its descriptions. The evidence of archaeology helps a little, but is again
restricted, pointing definitely to only one landfall at Richborough."° Yet
Dio stresses that the force was divided into three sections; consequently
three possibilities can be envisaged. The whole force could have landed
at Richborough in three consecutive waves; but it must be admitted that
the fortified beachhead there is not nearly large enough to contain so
many men, while no other encampment has yet been found nearby.
Secondly, it has been argued that whilst one division landed at Richbor-
ough, the other two landed at Dover and Lympne respectively; it should
be noted, however, that there is no evidence at all from either site of an
early Roman presence. Thirdly, it has been ingeniously argued that one
division at least was directed to a landing in the neighbourhood of
Chichester, in order to carry out the very necessary reinstatement of
Verica as soon as possible in his kingdom."! The balance of probability
would seem to favour the first hypothesis.

The landing was apparently unopposed. After some slight skirmish-
ing inland, in which Togodumnus was probably killed, the first major
action against the Britons was at the crossing of the river Medway, where
the Roman army was victorious; it then advanced to the Thames. At this
stage Caratacus is said to have fled to Wales. After a pause to allow
Claudius to arrive on the scene, the advance was resumed and the
emperor was able to enter the Catuvellaunian capital in triumph. There
then ensued further campaigns which carried the Roman advance to a
position marked roughly by a line drawn from the Humber to the
Severn, where for a time it ceased. It has been claimed that it was always
the intention of Rome to conquer the whole of Britain.!? If that was so, it
is very difficult to explain why, having reached the line established by c¢.

9 Seen. 7. 10 Cunliffe 1968 (E 533) 232-4. 't Hawkes 1961 (E 545) (see n. 2) 62-7.
'2 e.g. Mann 1974 (c 286) 529-31.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

508 13€. BRITAIN 43 B.C.—A.D. 69

A.D. 47, another twenty-three years elapsed before the major advance
into Wales and the north was resumed. The army lacked neither the
manpower nor the capability to advance immediately.

It seems more likely, therefore, that the original intention was only to
seek a pragmatic solution to the Catuvellaunian problem by conquest
and occupation; the line at which the advance stopped did just that. That
it also raised a new set of military problems, which in time required their
own solutions, cannot have been entirely foreseen in A.D. 43.

The limit of the advance was marked by the construction of a road, the
Fosse Way, for lateral communication from Lincoln to Exeter and by the
siting of forts and fortresses along it, to the front and to the rear of it,
forming a broad military zone to protect the newly conquered territory.
Most of the forts were occupied by auxiliary regiments but some at least
contained battle groups consisting of detachments of /egiones II Augusta,
XIV Gemina, and LX Hispana brigaded with cavalry. The whereabouts
of the headquarters fortresses of these legions in the years immediately
after the invasion is imperfectly known and still the subject of some
speculation. Legio XX Valeria appears to have been left in reserve at
Colchester until just before the foundation of the colonia in a.D. 49, after
which it too was moved forward to the frontier.

But not all remained peaceful, even after the primary objective had
been reached. Caratacus stirred up his new Welsh allies to attack the
province in A.D. 47 just as Ostorius Scapula was taking over the
governorship from Aulus Plautius. A campaign against Caratacus was
preceded by the disarming of tribes within the new province, an act
which itself caused trouble and led to a minor revolt among the allied
Iceni. Once started, the campaign against the Welsh tribes was inter-
rupted by disturbances among the northern Brigantes, whose queen
Cartimandua professed a pro-Roman outlook. Indeed Caratacus, after
his defeat in Wales, fled in vain to Cartimandua for protection, only to be
handed over to Rome.!3 There followed some years of almost conti-
nuous but confused and ill-recorded fighting in Wales and occasionally
in Brigantia, the only permanent result of which was the advance of the
frontier zone to the Welsh Marches, probably executed by Ostorius.
Then in A.D. 60, a much more serious threat faced the province, which
nearly resulted in its loss through the rebellion of Boudica, queen of the
Iceni, together with the neighbouring Trinovantes.'4

Much has been written about the causes of the rebellion. It is generally
accepted that among them were the forcible reduction of the Iceni,
following the death of the Roman client king, Prasutagus, and the refusal
of Rome to recognize his queen or daughters as successors. The

'3 Tac. Ann. x11.36; see also Hanson and Campbell 1986 (E 544) 73-90.
4 Tac. Ann. x1v.29-39-

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE INVASION 509

reduction was carried out in a heavy-handed and arrogant way by the
provincial procurator, Catus Decianus, which led to the flogging of
Boudica and the rape of her daughters. A contributory cause was the
requisitioning of Trinovantian land, including their principal religious
site, for the ferritorium of the new colonia at Colchester; another was the
probable expense of maintaining the newly introduced imperial cult. It
has also been suggested that a rebellion, just at that time, was intended to
act as a diversion and to distract the governor, Suetonius Paullinus, from
his campaign against the headquarters of druidism on the island of
Anglesey;!5 if so, it failed. Be that as it may, in A.D. 60, while Suetonius
was campaigning in north Wales with most of the British garrison, the
rebellion exploded; Colchester, London and Verulamium were sacked
and burnt, and excavations at each site have produced eloquent evidence
for the fires. The small force deployed by the procurator in defence of the
colonia was useless, as were the resident veterans. Legio LX, advancing
against the rebels from Longthorpe, suffered many casualties and had to
withdraw in disorder. Suetonius, apprised of the rebellion, hastened
from Wales in advance of his main army, and reached London before the
rebels, but realized that there was little that could be done to save the
town. He fell back to join his advancing army and finally brought the
rebels to battle, probably somewhere along the middle section of
Watling Street. The rebels were routed and the province saved. The
resulting punitive campaign in East Anglia, together with the battle
casualties, must have seriously impoverished the Iceni and Trinovantes
for at least a generation, leading to a much slower rate of Romanization
in later years.

In the ensuing decade, attempts were made to restore the province. A
new and more enlightened procurator, Iulius Classicianus, replaced
Catus Decianus, who had fled to Gaul at the outbreak of the revolt, while
a succession of milder governors ended hostilities and helped to placate
the natives. So successful were these measures that the province was
deemed sufficiently safe for /egio XIV to be withdrawn in 66. Unfortuna-
tely, the peace was shattered by the Roman army itself, disillusioned with
the resulting period of inactivity. A mutiny led by a legionary com-
mander, Roscius Coelius, forced the governor, Trebellius Maximus, to
flee the province in 69. But by then affairs of greater moment gripped the
whole empire. Nero had committed suicide in 68 and the power struggle
which ensued left its mark on Britain. Its new governor, Vettius
Bolanus, was a supporter of Vitellius, who was eventually defeated by
Vespasian. Moreover, /egio XIV which had supported Otho also
returned to Britain for a short time, while the remaining legions had
supported Vitellius. Vespasian therefore inherited a province of doubt-

13 Webster 1978 (E 564).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

510 13é@. BRITAIN 43 B.C.—A.D. 69

ful loyalty and it was not until the early 7os that he was able to take
remedial action.

III. ORGANIZATION OF THE PROVINCE

Once the midland frontier zone had been created, much of the south east
seems to have been demilitarized, and by a.p. 49, with the dispatch of
legio XX from Colchester to Gloucester, the way was open for the
development of the newly constituted province. It embraced two client
kingdoms: the resurrected sometime kingdom of Verica, now renamed
as the civitas of the Regni, with a new king, Cogidubnus, in west Sussex
and Hampshire, and the Iceni in East Anglia.!6 These two kingdoms
enabled Rome to make economies in manpower, although they were
very different in character and dependability. According to Tacitus,
Cogidubnus proved a staunch ally to Rome and led his kingdom steadily
towards peaceful Romanization until his death, probably in the Flavian
period.!7 Indeed for a short time during the Year of the Four Emperors
(A.D. 69) he may have helped to hold the province against a mutinous
army and an unreliable governor on behalf of Vespasian. The idea that he
was given the status of an imperial legate has now been undermined by a
re-reading of the damaged inscription from Chichester!8 which records
his name and titles. Certainly, whether legate or not, something
significant was happening in his kingdom at that time, for some of what
are probably the earliest urban defences in Britain are to be found there.
The Iceni appear to have been less ready to accept the benefits of the
conquest, and, on being forcibly disarmed by Ostorius Scapula, staged a
minor revolt, which was quickly put down; but it was a presage of more
serious things to come.

In the remaining area of the south east, through which the Roman
army had passed rapidly, it is possible to detect the establishment of three
civitates: units of local administration, formed from the Iron Age tribal
territories embraced by the Cantiaci, the Catuvellauni and the Trino-
vantes.!9 The latter first appear in history in Caesar’s account of Britain,
in a somewhat paradoxical way. Although he refers to them as the most
powerful tribe in Britain, they are at the same time also depicted as
seeking his protection and assistance to repel attacks by their western
neighbour, the tribe of Cassivellaunus. There is no further mention of
them, not even at the conquest, until they again appear, embroiled in the
Boudican rebellion; consequently, it must be assumed that they had re-
emerged under Rome as an independent unit of local government after

16 Wacher 1995 (E 560) 242. It has, however, been argued that the Iceni lay outside the province,

see Wacher 1981 (E 561) 136. 11 Tac. Agr. xiv. 18 RIBg1. See Bogaers 1979 (B 211) 243-54.
19 Frere 1961 (E 535). Wacher 1995 (E 560) 23, 189-241.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

URBANIZATION 511

years of Catuvellaunian domination. But it was their territory that was
chosen by the Roman administration for the foundation of the first city
in Britain, to act as an example of urbanization to the inhabitants of the
new province: an act that was to have far-reaching consequences.

IV. URBANIZATION AND COMMUNICATIONS

The foundation of the colonia at Colchester, on the site of the recently
evacuated legionary fortress, in A.D. 49, is mentioned by Tacitus as a
deliberate act of policy, whereby a reserve of legionary veterans was
maintained in the south east in the absence of any worthwhile regular
garrison.?9 It was also intended to act as a model of urbanization for the
native Britons, and incolae — native inhabitants — were included in the
population from the first. The earliest houses of the veterans have been
shown by excavations to owe much to the legionary structures that had
preceded them, although there were significant changes in layout; yet
some of the streets of the fortress were perpetuated.2! The position of the
forum is still not known with certainty although several sites have been
proposed; Tacitus mentions a caria. He also refers to a theatre which has
now been identified by excavation, but he stresses that there were no
fortifications at the time of the Boudican rebellion, which implies that
the legionary defences had been dismantled.” Astride the main road to
London on the western boundary, a triumphal arch was constructed,
presumably to commemorate the foundation of the colonia and to honour
its founder, Claudius. His memory, though, was more than adequately
recognized in the construction of the principal building connected with
the new city. This was the great temple of Claudius, which was also to be
the centre of the imperial cult in Britain.4 All that remains now is the
podium, lying beneath the Norman castle; originally, it stood within a
great colonnaded courtyard with an entrance to the south. It is often
argued that Colchester was also intended to be the provincial administra-
tive capital, a function that was later to fall on London. It should be
stressed, however, that there is no evidence to support this suggestion,
and in the extremely fluid state of the new province, it is more likely that
the ‘capital’ would tend to be where the governor was; there is nothing
to link him specifically with Colchester.

Some other urban centres had their beginnings in the years immedi-
ately after the invasion. Canterbury, a recognized Iron Age site, early
became the capital of the civitas Cantiacorum, although many of the
features originally attributed to its foundation are now thought to be
somewhat later, and the main development did not occur until the turn

20 Tac. Ann. x11.32. 21 Crummy 1982 (B 532) 125-34. 2 Tac. Ann. xiv.32.
3 Sen. Apocol. 8.3; see also Fishwick 1972 (B 534) 164-81.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

512 13¢. BRITAIN 43 B.C.—A.D. 69

of the first and second centuries. But the final street plan may owe some
of its irregularities to the lines of earlier streets and existing buildings.
London was recognized by Tacitus as a flourishing trading centre even
before the Boudican rebellion;?5 houses and shops of the first town,
burnt in the rebellion, have been uncovered over a wide area, but little is
known of any public buildings. There are indications of an embryonic
street system in the area north of the Thames bridge, the possible
northern abutment of which has been identified in excavations in
Pudding Lane. There is also evidence to show that at least some
provincial administrative functions were centred on London, possibly
even before the Boudican rebellion, and certainly after it. The procura-
tor, Iulius Classicianus, died in office and was buried at London; his
ornate, altar-style tombstone was found reused in the later town wall on
Tower Hill.27

Verulamium, like Canterbury, was also founded on the site of a major
Iron Age centre, the probable sometime oppidum of Tasciovanus. It
almost certainly served as the administrative centre for the Catuvellauni
from its beginning. Arguments, however, still continue over whether,
and if so when, municipal status was conferred. The most recent view
holds that it was granted under Claudius and at about the same time as
the foundation of colonial Colchester. But the evidence is not decisive
and relies to a large extent on the interpretation of a passage of Tacitus.?°
Excavations have identified a rudimentary street system of Claudian
date, and a number of buildings, mostly, as at both London and
Colchester, constructed with timber frames and wattle-and-daub walls,
and so consumed in the Boudican fire. One block in Insula XIV has been
identified as a range of shops, possibly built as a speculative venture by a
Catuvellaunian noble and rented out to his retainers or managed by
slaves. The forum and basilica are dated by the dedicatory inscription to
A.D. 79,°! although earlier structures may still lie undiscovered beneath
them. The town was encompassed, probably in the Claudian period, by a
bank and a ditch; when the town later expanded beyond them this line
was commemorated by two triumphal arches set astride the London—
Chester road.32

Two other embryonic urban settlements may be considered as
belonging to this period and both lie within the likely kingdom of
Cogidubnus. The site of the town at Chichester, in the kingdom’s
heartlands, had an early military presence, but it is not known precisely

24 Bennett 1984 (£ 528) 47-36. 2% Tac. Ann. xiv.33. 2% Milne 1982 (E 549) 271-6.

27 RIB 12. % Frere 1983 (£ 536) 11. 26-8.

2 Tac. Ann. xtv.33. But see also J.E. Bogaers, ‘Review of Wacher 1966 (£ 539), JRS 57 (1967)
233-4. 3% Frere 1972 (E $36) 1 passim.

31 Frere 1983 (E 536) 1 69-72. 2 Frere 1983 (E 536) 1 33-54.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

RURAL SETTLEMENT 513

how long it lasted. Yet, alongside the military base, or after it, there is
evidence for a major public building dedicated during Nero’s Princi-
pate.3 Probably slightly later, the Cogidubnus inscription* displays
advancing Romanization, not only in the existence of a temple to the
purely classical cult of Neptune and Minerva, but also to social
organization in the collegium fabrorum, or guild of craftsmen. Also, very
likely situated in Cogidubnus’ kingdom, the Iron Age oppidum at
Silchester has produced elements of early urbanized development which
included a bathhouse and amphitheatre*5 of Neronian date, anda slightly
later, but still Neronian, timber building on the site of the later forum and
basilica. This building has been variously interpreted as a market
square, a residence for Cogidubnus or military principia. But the two
phases of fortification on different alignments which were thought to
belong in the same context, have now been shown to be of pre-Roman
origin.37

Communications rapidly came to play a crucial part in the develop-
ment of the new province. Roads, such as Watling Street, Ermine Street,
Stane Street and the Fosse Way, were primarily constructed for military
reasons, but, once in existence, would have been used by all.3° They
linked a series of burgeoning ports such as Richborough, Dover,
Fishbourne, Colchester and London, which provided havens for the
increasing number of merchants wishing to exploit the new markets. No
doubt the major rivers were likewise pressed into service; it is worth
noting that water transport was much cheaper.39 It should also be
remembered that the main roads, even with their straight alignments,
metalled surfaces and good drainage, probably degenerated into a series
of muddy potholes in winter, possibly making road transport in Britain,
apart from pedestrians and pack animals, a seasonal affair which was
confined mainly to the summer. The upkeep of the road system, together
with its ancillary structures such as bridges, devolved upon the local
magistrates of the town or civitas through whose area they passed.

Vv. RURAL SETTLEMENT

The Romanization of the countryside was generally a slower process,
and there is little change to be observed in most farmsteads and
agricultural communities until much later, their owners continuing to
live in the traditional Iron Age manner, even though they began to use
new agricultural and domestic equipment and utensils. The first villas,
which are the best measure of the rate of adoption of Roman ways, were
to be found, as might be expected, not far from the new towns,

33 RIB 92. * RIBor. 35 Fulford 1989 (£ 541). % Fulford 1985 (E 540).
37 Fulford 1984 (£ 539). 38 Margary 1973 (E 547). 3% Duncan-Jones 1974 (A 24) 566-9.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

514 13@ BRITAIN 43 B.C.—A.D. 69

Verulamium, Colchester and London, and in the kingdom of Cogidub-
nus. It has, indeed, been claimed that in these rural areas the pace of
Romanization outstripped that in the new towns, with better quality
housing appearing in the countryside at an earlier date.40 It may be,
though, that these first ventures into Romanized country life were not
the work of native Britons, but of migrants from Gaul or further afield,
eager to invest in the new province. Such villas as Eccles (Kent), or
Angmering (Sussex), both probably of late Neronian or early Flavian
date, would seem to fit best into this category, but the early foundation at
Rivenhall (Essex) is held to have been built by a rich native landowner.*!
The stimulus given by the Roman occupation to increased agricultural
production was at first twofold: the demands of the tax-collector and the
food requirements of the army. Whenever or wherever troops have been
stationed in foreign or occupied territory, they have always created a
demand and have become a source of accessible wealth for the local
populations; the Roman army in Britain was no different. It is unlikely
that British farmers could have immediately supplied all the food needed
by the army. Total requisition would probably not have been a workable
policy for an army of permanent occupation, since it would have left the
producers to starve. Nevertheless, it must be reckoned that, within a
reasonable time, production would have been stimulated sufficiently to
meet most needs. This could only have been done by increasing the areas
of arable land, the clearance of which would have helped in supplying the
sudden demand for the huge quantities of timber required for construct-
ing the many new military and urban buildings. Once production had
begun to expand, it must have occurred to many British farmers that
there were profits to be made by increasing it still further, in order to
supply other markets offered by the new towns. This, or something like
it, will have been the economic base on which, in time, the villa system
grew.

VI. TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Improved communications undoubtedly helped to expand trade con-
nexions. But the introduction of Roman currency into the province,
primarily to pay the army, will have created a pool of low-value coins for
small, everyday transactions, thus performing a function which the
mostly high-value coinage of the Iron Age had failed to do. Trade in
Britain, and between Britain and the rest of the empire, increased rapidly,
much of it at first probably connected with supplies under army
contracts. Large quantities of samian pottery came mainly from factories

40 Walthew 1975 (E $63) 189-205. 41 Rodwell and Rodwell 1973 (E 554) 115-27.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

RELIGION 535

in southern Gaul, and other fine wares from places like Lyons;*? mortaria,
kitchen mixing bowls, also came in quantity. At first, British potteries
only supplied coarse wares, many still of Iron Age, wheel-made,
traditional types. Gradually, however, new forms began to infiltrate, and
within a decade or two, several centres were in full production,
supplying both military and civilian markets. Other imports included
glassware from the eastern Mediterranean and metalwork from Gaul and
Italy. But Britain slowly built up its own industries, which, apart from
the manufacture of pottery, were usually situated in the towns. A
bronze-smith’s workshop existed at Verulamium before the Boudican
rebellion, where goods would have been both manufactured and sold on
the premises.*3 Unfortunately, the evidence for industries and trade
connected with organic materials such as wood, leather or cloth, does
not often survive. But there is evidence for the exploitation and export of
minerals such as Wealden iron and more notably the lead/silver ores in
the Mendips worked possibly as early as A.D. 49 by a detachment of /egio
IT. It is interesting that the pattern of trade between Britain and other
parts of the empire in some ways resembled that of modern trade
between developed and undeveloped countries, the former exporting
manufactured goods and the latter raw materials. Strabo listed corn,
cattle, hides, slaves, gold, silver, iron and hunting dogs as British exports
in the time of Augustus; ivory ornaments, amber, glass and other
manufactured trinkets came in return, although wine and oil might well
be added to the list.45

VII. RELIGION

The new province was already well served by its native cults, which
tended to be localized; yet there is evidence from the Roman period for
the existence of tribal deities, such as Brigantia,* and for sites which had
more far-reaching significance, such as Bath with its deity, Sulis,
presiding over the hot springs.‘7 In most instances, Celt and Roman
possessed a common basic level of superstition.4® Consequently, the
introduction of classical cults would have struck an immediate response;
Celtic and Roman deities often shared similar areas of supernatural
influence, so that Minerva could be identified both with Sulis at Bath and
Brigantia in the north. But totally foreign to British religious practice
was the introduction of the imperial cult, with its physical centre at
Colchester. This provided a common element in the empire which had

42 Greene 1978 (E $42). 43 Frere 1972 (E 536) 1. 18.
“ Butsee reservations expressed by Whittick 1982 (E 566) 113-24. 45 Strab. Iv.5.3 (200-1).
“ RIB 2091. 47 RIB 141-50. 48 Wacher 1978 (E 562) 217-26.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

516 13€. BRITAIN 43 B.C.—A.D. 69

an enormous diversity of religious practice and at the same time
incorporated expressions of loyalty to the imperial household. It
required an expensive commitment on the part of the leading inhabitants
of the province — the size and magnificence of the temple of Claudius
attracted unfavourable comment even in Rome. Yet the concept had
worked well in Gaul, with its great centre at Lyons, and there was no
reason to believe that it would not work in Britain; that it was to become
one of the causes and focal points of the Boudican rebellion could not
have been foreseen.

The account given above suggests that the process usually described as
Romanization in Britain was very uneven in place, time and depth.
Although the Romans encouraged aemu/atio in their provinces and often
provided models of behaviour or structure, little pressure was applied to
force the change. The rate, therefore, at which any individual or
community adopted the new ways was largely a matter of personal
inclination. Provided that existing ways of life and behaviour were
acceptable to the Roman administration, and taxes were paid, no change
was demanded. Naturally, therefore, the fastest rate of Romanization is
to be detected in those areas of Britain which had been affected by the
most recent migrations from Gaul, whose people had already been in
closer contact with Roman culture. Practical, less often financial, help
might be provided for Romanizing communities, as in the founding of
new towns; but in the end, the main burden of the cost had to be paid by
those same communities or its individual members. This, in itself,
imposed the limit to the progress of Romanization. Strictly, the Roman
civil administration was not concerned with the welfare of society,
except insofar as a well-ordered province made tax collection easier. Nor
could it do much more to help, even given the best of intentions. It was
probably no more than a few hundred strong, consisting mainly of
military personnel seconded for these duties, and simply did not have the
manpower to influence every individual member of the estimated 2 to 3
million population of the province. Consequently, it could only function
properly through delegation of responsibilities to the native people; the
degree of delegation could vary greatly from place to place depending on
the natives’ fitness to accept it. Hence, also, the towns, villas and other
structures of Roman Britain ultimately exhibit many variations in size,
planning and degree of sophistication, mainly conditioned by the
presence or absence of financial restraints, or will.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 13

GERMANY

C. RUGER

I. INTRODUCTION

After 50 B.c. when Caesar left Gaul, Gaul’s eastern and northern border
lay on the Rhine.! The aim of securing the Roman north west against
migratory movements and wild attacks from north and east by means of
a border line that could be precisely marked out was achieved. In the
upper Danube region of central Europe, to be sure, the policy was
limited to gaining control over the alpine passes through which for
almost 300 years uncontrollable attacks on Rome’s alpine approaches,
indeed attacks on the city itself, had been launched.

Caesar’s conquest of Gaul had an effect on the migratory movements
which had obviously been taking place for centuries in the north-west
part of the European continent. Caesar would not countenance the
continued crossing to the left bank of the Rhine by Germans. But
Germani Cisrhenani were already present on the left bank of the river.
According to Caesar’s own definition the latter included the Eburones in
the area between the Rhine and Maas and the Caerosi, Paemani, Segni
and Condrusi who inhabited the Eifel and the Ardennes. But the epithet
Germani might never have meant more to him than ‘stern warriors’.
Geographically one must include the Texuandri to the west of the Dutch
and Belgian river Maas. Although the amount of Celtic in their
languages seems easier to isolate and define than the Germanic, which
was still at its earliest stage of development, we can identify some
characteristics of primitive Germanic character, like the doubling of

! The main literary sources for Germany in this period are Cassius Dio (Books Ltv—Lv1), Velleius
Paterculus (11, 60-132) and Tacitus (Aan. 11, x1.16-19, x11.27—8, x111.5 5-6; Hist. 1v.12-37, 54-79,
v.14-26 (Civilis and the Batavian Revolt)), Strab. 1v.3f (1g0cff) and 289-329¢ Book vii). Tacitus’
Germania, although written at the end of the first century A.D., contains a great deal of relevant and
important information. The literary sources are collected by Capelle 1937 (E $72) and Klinghoffer
1955 (E 582). The inscriptions are collected in CIL xu; for later additions see R. Finke, BRGK 17
(1927) 31-105, 201-14; H. Nesselhauf, ibid. 27 (1937), 66-13, H. Lieb, H. Nessethauf, ibid., 40 (1959)
129-216, U. Schillinger-Hafele, ibid. 58 (1977) 473-561. For coins see the volumes of Die
Faundmitnzen der romischen Zeit in Deutschland. There is a huge amount of archaeological evidence,
much of which may be found in the periodicals Germania, Bonner Jabrbicher and BRGK. There are
useful surveys by Schonberger 1969 (E 591) and Raepsaet-Charlier 1975 (E 587). See also ch. 13d, no.
I

517

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

8007 ‘sserg ArszaatuQ aspuquieg EG sUTTUO saoisT esprquiey

-Auruay -6 dey

hana p =

a ef —-

“ix

(| ee Loan)

“
o | (Aezaneg 1U0yy) & x
te 91223018 i N
ing3v |
\ eer | wen neaqaiiw K
i (oursy-cis-emtry)

|( seiBue] @

INOZ SIHL a)
| on |

) yegnuey

}HNONNWH3H |

@ saifuoy
ionivnAly
IMEWYONS SSNON a
und D fueqsy
| eaieases
eX

weyeH a
Uesneysars}°

oso

| \
$01}8W 000'| J@A0 puey Ef] Ly | 3
Ze

BYydoNse)ed UELEA BY) JO BS B/GQISSOg
AUANOe UEWoY WM Bpiddo eBy-u0s)
seseq Ase})|)W UB/AB/ 4-810 pue UeIAe}4
PueLeuiY a4) Ui seys VeIsniny

says Aseyjw uevegy-ueIsniny

eae

520 13f. GERMANY

certain consonants or throaty pronunciations unknown to the Celtic
speaker.?

To north and west these tribes were hemmed in by Belgic tribes who
had, according to Caesar, a Gallic character — the Menapii, the Nervii,
the Remi and Treveri. The last-named made considerable play of their
Germanic origin, according to Tacitus, something which is difficult to
reconcile with the ‘Germani qui trans Rhenum incolunt’ involved in
Caesar’s Helvetian affair.> Linguistics and archaeology have brought to
light little or nothing Germanic in the territory of the Treveri, or in the
territory which later became the Agri Decumates — nothing at least that
can be measured against the culture of the Weser and Elbe Germans as
revealed by archaeology, or by the findings of Celticists in the fields of
genetic affiliation and linguistic geography. Were the Treveri involved
perhaps in the ‘Germanic’ tribal thrust into the heart of Gaul after 113
B.C., or that of 109 which brought defeat to the ex-consul, Marcus Iunius
Silanus, or were they among those who eventually settled in the heart of
Gaul after 11524

How ancient can tribal traditions be? What was the Germanic element
that made the Tacitean Treveri allegedly so proud of their origins? It is to
be found according to linguists and archaeologists as sparsely in the
Moselle area as on the right bank of the Rhine in south-west Germany,
where language survivals from the pre-Germanic occupation (i.e. in the
period before the Alamannic raids of A.D. 233) show next to no
Germanic traits. That is also true of the Nemetes, Triboci and Vangiones
who moved under Caesar or in the post-Caesarian period to settle on the
left bank of the Rhine. Nervii, Menapii, Eburones and Treveri mark the
northern edge of the oppidum-based civitates of the second and first
centuries B.c. (La Téne C to La Téne Dr). This is always viewed as Celtic.
By contrast the north was populated by tribes who in the post-Caesarian
disposition belonged to the area south and west of the Rhine as far as the
North Sea: Cananefates, Batavi, Suebi (Sugambri/Ciberni), Ubii,
Nemetes, Triboci and Vangiones, and on the right bank Tacitus’
‘levissimus quisque Gallorum’ in the abandoned Helvetian area of
south-west Germany, later the agri Decumates.5 It is not possible, as yet, to
establish the pattern of these migrations. A successful attempt to
reconcile literary sources with archaeological evidence has so far only
been made in the field of coinage. As Tacitus says, the Batavians formed
part of the large tribal unit of the Chatti whose centre was on both banks
of the river Lahn in the Westerwald and the Taunus mountains. A

2 The names of soldiers (such as Chrauttius) at Vindolanda, garrisoned by Tungrian and Batavian
units at the end of the first century a.p., appear to be the earliest evidence of this kind, see A.K.
Bowman, J.D. Thomas, J.N. Adams, Britannia 21 (1990) 33-52; Weisgerber 1968 (E $99) 143-68.

3 Tac. Germ xxvimt, Caes. BGall. 1.22-9, esp. 28.4. 4 Livy, Epit. 63, App. BCiv. 1.29.

5 Tac. Germ. xx1x.4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

INTRODUCTION 521

Chattan dependency has proven to be obvious for the Batavian coinage
in La Téne Dz.6 We can say nothing, however, about other material
remnants of a migration which occurred a generation after Caesar,
although one might expect these people to have had the ability and
experience to produce pottery and to have brought with them the
techniques of production which would leave their mark, for at least a
generation or two, in the type of ware and the shapes of the vessels.

The settlement of these tribes in the north west of Caesar’s Gaul took
place with or without Rome’s approval and supervision. The literary
sources for the period between Caesar’s departure and the arrival of
troops on the Rhine under Augustus (16 B.c.) make repeated comments,
particularly with reference to the time between M. Agrippa’s two
periods of activity in this region (39/8 and 19/18 B.c.), which lead to the
conclusion that there was a deliberate policy of settling right-bank
Germans on the left bank of the Rhine. And many a commander on the
Rhine claimed prestige at Rome for a victory ‘de Germanis’ or for
outstanding feats of military engineering such as the digging of canals or
the re-routing of waterways. Of course the post-Caesarian forces in Gaul
were distributed according to plans which were in no way directed to
give them a function protective of the Rhine zone, as is shown by both
the literary and the archaeological evidence for the deployment of winter
garrisons throughout the interior of Gaul. Tiberius and Claudius
provided for that for the first time between a.p. 17 and 47. Moreover, a
miserable defeat, like that of the general Lollius in 17/16 B.c. (‘maioris
infamiae quam detrimenti’, ‘involving more ignominy than actual
damage’),’ demonstrated the tactical deployment of the post-Caesarian
army asa striking force. That left the Germans on the right bank enough
time to settle down, even without Rome’s blessing, in the devastated
land formerly belonging to the Eburones and the Menapii who had been
pushed to the Channel coast.

The north-west European lowlands reveal that cultural movements
spread from south to north, doubtless for the whole of post-Neolithic
prehistory and particularly during the Hallstatt and La Téne periods
(800-50 B.c.). The most northerly evidence for large-scale tribal organi-
zation and aristocratic tradition can be traced in Treveran territory. The
war coalition of the Eburones fell apart again immediately after their
defeat by Caesar. The name of the Eburones is no longer found in the
Roman period. Their heartland on both sides of the Maas is for the well-
informed elder Pliny a diffuse tribal area, ‘pluribus nominibus’.8 The
impoverished isolation of the north, which until the third century B.c.

6 Tac. Hist. 1v.12. Batavian coinage: N. Roymans, W. van der Sanden, Berichten van de Rijksdienst
voor bet Oudbeidkundig Bodemonderzoek 30 (1980) 173-254. 7 Suet. Ang. 23.1.
8 Pliny, HN tv.106.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

522 13f. GERMANY

enjoyed an ‘epilithic culture’, using old-fashioned stone tools and
implements, can only be explained in terms of lack of local metal
resources and the lack of economic opportunities for obtaining metal by
exchange. It was very difficult in the first millennium B.c. for the new
technology to gain a foothold in the poor diluvial geology of north-west
Europe. In the rich south of the area, as in central Gaul, we come across
names of local aristocrats whom we can recognize as the c/ientelae of those
families who in the second and first centuries B.c. played a part in Roman
campaigning in Gaul: Domitii, Cornelii, Valerii, Vibii, Calpurnii. In this
Romanized clientela we often find the title amicus populi Romani.

In the north such pre-Caesarian involvement with Rome as an
important instrument of Romanization is missing. There are no lowland
finds of early first-century amphorae of type Dressel 14 in the continental
north west. Diplomatic contact with the German king Ariovistus went
as far as the exchange of exotic royal gifts in hellenistic style.!° Caesar did
not change the system, but with frontier security in mind emphasized the
difference between cis- and trans-rhenane people. Here there arises a
curious dichotomy between archaeology and linguistics on the one hand
and ancient (and also modern) historiography on the other. To judge by
the canons of typology and language the north-south divide follows an
east—west line north of the Eifel and Ardennes, while historians place it
east and west of a north-south line along the Rhine. This division takes
the form of a cross — it is, quite literally, a crux. All the models advanced
to account for the popular groupings and process of ethnogenesis in the
north-west quarter of this crucial field, such as the idea of an independent
north-west block that differs from the Germanic and Celtic and repre-
sents a genuine third force, have so far proved unsatisfactory, despite all
the efforts of historians and archaeologists.

The establishment of Roman rule in north Gaul can be seen archaeolo-
gically at central places like the great Treveran oppidum of the Titelberg
in Luxembourg. Here we have names of money-coining Treveran
chieftains who are dated by the numismatists to between the arrival of
Caesar in Gaul and the crushing of a Treveran revolt in 29 B.c. They
produced the so-called second Treveran group of coins (the first belongs
to pre-Caesarian times).!! Vocarant[ ] and Lucotius appear as pre-
Caesarian chieftains’ names, while Pottina and Arda occur under Caesar.
None of these personalities crop up in Caesarian literary records. There
seem to be no later coin legends belonging to Treveran chieftains. Then
there appear the issues of Aulus Hirtius, probably of 45 B.c. In this year,
in which he became pro-praetor of Gaul and received the title imperator,
his minting perhaps reflects the triumphal elephant-ride of Cn. Domitius

9 Roymans 1987 (E 588). 10 Caes. BGall. 1.44, Pliny, HN 11.170.
11 See Heinen 1985 (£ 580) 27-30.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

INTRODUCTION $23

Ahenobarbus (cos. 122 B.C.), after his victory over the Allobroges in 121
B.c., which saw the end of tactical deployment of elephants on the
European continent. The final type in the Treveran coin series was
issued by the freedman Germanus, mint-master of an aristocrat Indutil-
lus in about 10 B.c., and thereafter it was perhaps minted in the new
Treveran capital of Augusta Treverorum.’2 Interestingly, a Roman
garrison was posted on the Titelberg from 29 B.c. until the Augustan
offensive of 16 B.c., without causing the abandonment of the surround-
ing oppidum. This garrison must have needed the large quantity of small
change which was found there and which had to a large extent been
minted there, too. For the first time now, Roman imported goods appear
in the north west of continental Europe.The merchants who followed
Caesar’s army must have left behind Mediterranean amphora types and
Campanian ware along with types of this period. So far they have been
found neither on the Rhine nor in the whole region attributed to the
northern tribes. The few Campanian-style black sherds and the wine and
garum amphorae were found at hill-sites belonging to the post-Caesarian
period. That sets the north-western area of Gaul clearly apart from the
south. Here exports from the coast of Campania have left their traces on
the Ligurian coast and the Cote d’Azur, then up the Rhone and Saéne
and so on to the Rhine bend, where typically the goods are not carried
down the Rhine, but north-eastwards right across the later Raetia to the
Danube. It seems that there was a trade route in wine from the
Mediterranean before the great upheavals in our area which took place
between La Téne B and La Téne C in the Eifel-Ardennes region. These
upheavals may perhaps lie behind the tribal tradition of the Treveri
about their Germanic origin. Be that as it may, these Mediterranean
imports have nothing to do with Romanization. The few black sherds of
Campanian ware and the wine and garam amphorae of the north west
turn up at places which must be the result of post-Caesarian military
logistics and associated trade, such as we see on the Titelberg in
Luxembourg and perhaps on the Petrisberg at Trier.

A number of other matters bear on the question of Romanization. It is
useful and valid to adduce Roman nomenclature in the north west as an
indicator of Romanization. It can be emphasized that we know many
lulii, Tiberii and Claudii in our area of interest. The list of the north-west
Gallic nobility from the Ubii, Treveri, Batavi and Cananefates caught up
in the revolt of A.D. 69/70 is full of these names. Their families will
scarcely all have received Roman citizenship in Caesar’s time — perhaps
not even the majority did so. It seems that the Romanization of Gaul
after the second triumvirate will have followed the same course as it did
in the East, where c/tentelae were formed in the triumviral period through

12 See Heinen 1985 (E 580) 29-30, 38-9.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

524 13f. GERMANY

the Aemilii and Antonii. Obviously in Octavian’s territory and during
the interregnum the same process took place in the name of the Iulii as a
reaction to his adoption. One must not underestimate the vivid memory
of Caesar expressed in myths about him in eastern Gaul and the
Rhineland. The temple of Mars at Cologne for example possessed a
sword of Caesar’s, a precious relic steeped in omens:!3 in the frontier
lands of eastern Gaul there was a noble whose pedigree reflected descent
from a liaison of Iulius Caesar with his maternal ancestor.!* As early as
the time of Agrippa’s presence and under the later governors of both
Germanies, bridge building over the Rhine — and much else besides —
must have had its origins, at least to some extent, in emulation of Caesar
(aemulatio Caesaris). The tendency of modern historiography to assign
fixed dates to everything, and to offer other explanations for the Rhine
bridges should not obscure the fact that Iulius Caesar’s image was still a
living force on the Rhine throughout the first century A.D.

Agrippa, the most intelligent and promising of Augustus’ generals,
did not see himself in a leading role. Both his periods of activity in this
region, that of 39/38 B.c. and that of 19/18 B.c., served less to give hima
high profile in Gaul than to reinforce the position of Octavian/
Augustus. The most important date for the establishment of the
ideology of the new Caesar was the erection at Lugdunum of the Pan-
Gallic altar, the Ara Galliarum, traditionally dated to 12 B.c., the year of
Agrippa’s death.!5 There followed, probably in the first decade a.p. the
foundation of an Ara Ubiorum along the same lines as the ideological
centre of the cult of Rome which had already been provided for the
Gauls at the confluence of the Sadne with the Rhéne at Lyons. But the
Ara Ubiorum was not brought into being until a firm basis had been laid
for the occupation of the land between the Rhine and the Elbe, a
development designed to protect Gaul and to create a new province
north of the Alps which bordered Caesar’s old conquests.

II. ROMAN GERMANY, 16 B.C.-A.D. 17

Agrippa’s recall from his second period of activity in Gaul and the
elaborate celebration of the extraordinary Secular Games marks the end
of a phase in the military activity between the Mediterranean coast and
the Euphrates and north-west Spain. With the achievement of pacifica-
tion, the princeps Augustus was able for the first time to turn his attention
to aemulatio Caesaris and to conquest through a bellum externum. In
Caesarian fashion he attempted this feat in north-west Europe with a
large-scale movement which was to make the land between the Danube
bend at Vienna and the mouth of the Weser into imperial territory.

13 Suet. Vit. 8. 4 Tac. Hist. 1v.55. 'S For a different view, see above, ch. 2, p. 98.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

16 B.C.—A.D. 17 525

The period between 16 B.c. and the defeat of Varus in A.D. 9, or rather
to the final abandonment of the policy of conquest east of the Rhine in
A.D. 17, is characterized by a long-term strategy of pincer manoeuvres.
On the Rhine and on the North Sea coast, on Lake Constance and on the
Hochrhein, on the Lech and Danube, these depended on amphibious
tactics. The precondition was the collection of military and geographical
intelligence from a base on the Rhine; the compilation of such infor-
mation could well have been started by Agrippa, given his geographical
interests, in 39/8 or 19/18 B.c. Likewise the alpine passes from the south
and on the east flank of the zone of occupation were secured by the
annexation of the kingdom of Noricum.

It is an attractive hypothesis that Camp A at Novaesium/Neuss, so far
the only camp dated to between 16 and 12 B.c., was built principally for
this intelligence-gathering operation. The construction of all other
fortresses and forts seems to have taken place after 12 B.c. and may be
supposed to have followed the establishment of the reconnaissance camp
at Novaesium/Neuss c. 16 B.c. This camp lies at the end of an important
road that links the continental north west with the Mediterranean, the
Rhine with the Rhone. It leads from Marseilles, up the Rhone via
Lugudunum/Lyons to Andematunnum/Langres and Divodurum/Metz,
then down the Moselle to Augusta Treverorum/Trier and through the
Eifel-Ardennes range via Beda Vicus/Bitburg, then down the river Erft
to Novaesium/Neuss. After about 5 B.c. a branch road was built which
later became more important — the road from Belgica Vicus/Billig to Ara
Ubiorum/Cologne.'*

The troops were transferred from the interior of Gaul to their
operational base camps on the Rhine. The most important role in the
scheme was played by the sites which lay opposite the mouths of the
tributaries which flowed into the Rhine north or east of Cologne:
Mogontiacum/Mainz opposite the mouth of the Main, Novaesium/
Neuss opposite the Ruhr, Vetera/Xanten opposite the Lippe, Novioma-
gus/Nijmegen opposite the Yssel, perhaps also a site opposite the mouth
of the Neckar, another in the area of Basle and certainly Fectio/Vechten
as a base for amphibious operations towards the North Sea.

The major events of the period between 16 B.c. and a.D. 17 on the
Rhine are in the mainstream of imperial history: here we are mainly
concerned with the important stages in the Romanization of this area.
Four lines of penetration from the Rhine have been identified. The first is
the line from Nijmegen via Vechten along the Frisian and Chaucan coast
to the mouth of the Weser; the second is the line from Xanten up the
Lippe towards Cheruscan territory and the Weser; the third a line from
Mainz northwards through the Wetterau towards the middle Lahn, Fuld

16 For bibliography see Raepsaet-Charlier 1975 (E $87) 92-3-

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

526 13f. GERMANY

and Werra towards the Weser and Elbe. A fourth line of penetration
appears to have had its base of operation south of Mainz in the territory
of the Vangiones and to strike west—east into the territory of the
Marcomanni, touching ata tangent the two southward bends of the river
Main; the evidential support for the existence of this line is, however,
still poor. In addition, there is another line of penetration leading from
the Basle area by way of Dangstetten and Hiifingen to the north east and
the Danube.

The result of the offensives along these routes was the conquest of the
area by Drusus and Tiberius in the period up to 8 B.c. when the
protection of Gaul seems to have been secured by a German buffer zone.
Between 6 B.c. and A.p. 1 Domitius Ahenobarbus as commander-in-
chief would have used the operational routes out from Mainz to reach
the Elbe. Perhaps the recently found traces of a Roman camp in the
vicinity of Wiirzburg are evidence for his activities in the settlement of
the Hermunduri in southern Thuringia and north Franconia.!7

Various enterprises were launched at this time by Roman com-
manders using the pressure of annexation, as well as the practice of
securing the allegiance of the nobility through attachment to the army.
This is the period when chieftains’ sons like Arminius obtained officer
rank in the Roman army and Roman citizenship for themselves, and
when Ahenobarbus became involved in the internal affairs of the
Cherusci by attempting to reintroduce political refugees.'8

The disturbances which broke out in A.p. 1, described by the eye-
witness Velleius Paterculus as an ‘immensum bellum’, demanded
renewal of the measures taken in the previous generation.!9 Tiberius
took energetic action. An amphibious army and fleet operation on the
old pattern took place again up to the Elbe. While the land between
Rhine and Elbe had, on the face of it, been restored to dependency on
Rome, a new threat in the guise of the Marcomannic Empire of King
Maroboduus arose on Tiberius’ eastern flank. The combined troops of
Germania, Raetia and Illyricum were mobilized against him. Once more
the line of advance from Mainz through Chattan territory, up the Main
towards the Saale and Elbe was used as the western offensive route
against Maroboduus. The identity and location of the easternmost
fortress belonging to those forward thrusts seems now to be confirmed
by the recent discovery ofa military base at Marktbreit on the river Main,
25 km east of Wiirzburg.”

In or before a.p. 7 P. Quinctilius Varus took over the command of the

17 Ciippers 1990 (E 574) 83, Abb. 39.
18 Arminius: Vell. Pat. 1.118.2, Ahenobarbus, Dio Lv.10a.2—-3.
19 Vell. Pat. 11.104.2. 2% Cappers 1990 (E 574) 83, Abb. 39.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

16 B.C.—A.D. 17 §27

army in Germania. Varus was married to a daughter of Agrippa and
Claudia Marcella senior, and so belonged to the immediate circle of
Augustus and Agrippa.?! After Augustus’ eastern journey of 21 B.c. he
came to the princeps’ attention and enjoyed his personal patronage.
Velleius Paterculus describes him as more of an administrator than a
general? and the organization of supply routes and an infrastructure for
the imposition of tribute was clearly now thought necessary. In A.D. 9,
however, Arminius, a Roman egues and aristocratic leader of the
Cherusci, succeeded in uniting the disaffected circles of the nobility
between Rhine and Elbe to such effect that he was able to achieve the
catastrophic defeat of the Roman forces in the Teutoburg Forest in
which three legions, three a/ae and six cohorts, over 20,000 men all told,
were lost. ,

The result was an immediate abandonment of the strong points built
between 8/7 B.c. and A.D. 9 along the lines of communication. Neverthe-
less, the bridgehead on the right bank of the Rhine opposite Mainz was
held, as also, perhaps, was a bridgehead on the right bank opposite
Vetera.

On the right bank of the Rhine the influence of the Elbe Germans was
now strengthened. The latter took over the area round Bad Neuheim
and Wiesbaden, with its important salt reserves, as their administrative
centre. It had previously been occupied by the Ubii who had now
migrated to the left bank of the Rhine. This immigrant element of the
Chatti, the Mattiaci, is also described by Tacitus as German,”3 but all the
traces of their language which we can recognize are Celtic. They have
this in common with the Nemetes and the Triboci, tribal units with
Celtic names, who likewise crossed to the left bank of the Rhine; in this
area only the Vangiones are linguistically Germanic. Of the Elbe
Germans, contingents of the great tribal coalition of the Suebi settled on
the upper Rhine on the right hand side of the river. Perhaps they were
sections of tribes from Maroboduus’ realm who migrated under Roman
pressure to the vicinity of the Rhine.

The earliest Romanizing tendencies revealed by the historical sources
concern only the high Germanic nobility of the area between the Rhine
and the Elbe. Thus, members of the right-bank aristocracy served as
priests at the Ara Ubiorum. The Romans, probably consciously, made
the decision not to erect another provincial altar on the Lugdunum
pattern between Rhine and Elbe; indeed, the altar founded among the
Ubii in the last decade B.c. remained the ideological cult-centre for the
newly conquered territories. When Gaius and Lucius Caesar the grand-
sons and adopted sons of the emperor died, institutionalized commem-

21 PKéln 1.10. 2 Vell. Pat. 11.117.2-4. 23 Tac. Germ. xxix.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

528 13f. GERMANY

oration of them in cult form (perhaps at dynastic altars, inscriptions from
which have been found in several north Gallic cities) served to reinforce
the presence and impact of Rome in the newly conquered territory.

III. THE PERIOD OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE MILITARY ZONE (A.D. 14-90)

The overall command of Germanicus over the armies of both Upper and
Lower Germany came to an end in a.p. 16. The separation of the two
armies (exercitus superior, exercitus inferior) of the Rhine, had taken place in
A.D. 14, as Tacitus states.” It took Tiberius three years after the death of
Augustus to pacify the troops of Lower Germany, to repair the
unavoidable political damage on the right bank of the Rhine through
carefully targeted campaigns, and to recall the troops to the bases on the
left bank of the Rhine which had been used for the offensive towards the
Elbe. Thereafter there was an exercitus Germanicus superior and an exercitus
Germanicus inferior with respective command centres in Mogontiacum/
Mainz and Ara Ubiorum/Cologne. Since the Caesarian period, Rome
had been in no doubt that the people living on the left bank of the Rhine
included Germans. The terminology and the mixed military and civil
character of Rome’s administration through provincial legates (/egati
Augusti pro praetore) allowed the institutionalization not only of the two
German armies but also of two provinciae, a tetm which in its strictest
traditional sense denotes a military command. It was a brilliant stroke of
political propaganda to disguise the abandonment of the land between
the Elbe and the Rhine. ‘Germania’ existed despite the abandonment and
in the following sixty years the region was developed into two regular
provinces on the left bank of the Rhine, which were really only pocket-
handkerchief-sized military zones along the eastern boundary of the Tres
Galliae. Successful attempts at consolidation under Vespasian and his
sons, however, eventually made it possible to design a new positive
programme that led in about a.p. 85 to the foundation of the two official
provinces, Germania Superior with its capital at Mainz and Germania
Inferior with its capital at Cologne.

The Gallo—German nobility on both sides of the Rhine, whose
allegiance Rome as the occupying power sought to secure through
individual grants of citizenship and absorption into the ranks of the
equites, was a pillar of Romanization. But Romanization was unstable, as
the crisis provoked by Arminius between a.p. 5 and 9 demonstrated.
That remained manifestly the case until the Batavian revolt. Within the
major tribes on the eastern border who had remained strong, conflict
between the pro-Roman and the tribally conservative forces was

* Tac. Ann. 1.31.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D.14—90 529

constantly breaking out, as it did in A.D. 21 with the revolt of the
Treveran and Aeduan nobles, Iulius Florus and Iulius Sacrovir; the pro-
Roman element among the Treveri was led by Iulius Indus.” As always,
the Treveran affair ended in victory for the occupying power and its
supporters. The losers were penalized by loss of land on the Rhine
between Bingen and Koblenz, a loss which affected the whole of the
Treveran civitas. There may have been other, similar episodes, less well
attested. Tacitus mentions a Chattan war which should be placed in the
mountains of Westerwald and Taunus and is confirmed by the recent
discovery of a bridge across the Rhine which can be dated by dendro-
chronology to A.D. 42.26 It may have been incidents of this kind in
Friesland which lay behind the taking of hostages from the Frisii, after
the defeat of L. Apronius, and their settlement in a.p. 47 by Corbulo.??

The second category of obviously reliable allies of the Roman
occupation were the native east-Gaulish long distance traders, often
identical with the shipowners on the Gallic and German inland water-
ways. We meet them in shippers’ guilds on Lake Geneva, on the Seine, in
the warehouses of Lyons and as wealthy, self-confident riverine carriers
on the Rhine. Here they present themselves, sometimes proudly, on the
monuments as non-citizens, like the nauta, Blussus, in Mainz.28 They
maintain local burial rites and even on their tomb inscriptions they retain
the individual dialect characteristic of their Gallo-Germanic region — the
millstone exporters at Nickenich in the volcanic zone of the Eifel
provide a good example of this phenomenon. These traders transport
and import Mediterranean goods, above all wine and other Italian and
Spanish commodities like garum, through Gaul to Britain. On a tribal
basis they form club-like groups of consistentes with the army and in the
mercantile centres on the Rhine — the merchants’ clubs of Remi and
Lingones, for example, associated with the military base at Vetera.”9 As
merchants with good Gallic names they turn up even in Pompeii.
Others, like the prosperous non-citizen (peregrinus) from Nickenich are
connected to the army because it needed their merchandise, in this case
the military quernstones which, like the helmets of the unit, were the
property of the legionary centuriae.

Parallel to the assimilation of the nobility through a deliberate policy
of granting citizenship, and through favours shown by the military to
local negotiatores and mercatores, barge-owners and long-distance traders,
a deliberate effort was made to urbanize important native settlements,

3 Tac. Ann. 111.40-7. :
2% Chattan War: Tac. Ann. x11.27-8. Dendrochronology of bridge: B. Schmidt, BJ 181 (1981)

301-11. 2 Tac. Ann. x1.19. 2% CIL xu 2.7067.

2 Citizen consistentes in civilian village and linked by trade to the army: CIL xu 11806 and C.
Riger, ZPE 43 (1981) 332-5.

3% J.L. Weisgerber 1969 (£ 600) 87-102 = Germania 17 (1933) 14-104.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

530 13f. GERMANY

first under Augustus and then more intensively under Claudius. Vespa-
sian slowed down the process in the left-bank area of the frontier zone
and concentrated on the Agri Decumates, but Trajan and Hadrian again
forced the pace.

North of Lyons in the direction of the Rhine two colonial settlements
came to prominence, Iulia Equestris (Nyon) and Augusta Raurica
(Augst) both in northern Switzerland. In their cases the government
seems to have been more generous with its grant of colonial rights than it
was to Lugdunum/Lyons itself, which was first raised to colonial status
under Claudius. Equestris and Raurica must therefore be seen as genuine
military coloniae of veterans, while Lugdunum as a Roman provincial
town was planned principally for the Gauls themselves as a centre for
administration, and was to become a centre of coin production and of the
cult of Rome and the emperor.!

The development in the north seems to have run along similar lines.
Trier was founded by the emperor as Augusta Treverorum in the second
decade B.c., but not at first raised to the status of co/onia. In the north
there was the altar to Rome at the Oppidum Ubiorum/Cologne. The
creation of more coloniae and municipia in the Roman north west remained
a slow process compared with other marginal parts of the empire such as
Mauretania. Instead, the development of a civitas system was promoted
as appropriate in a hinterland with few urban centres. In this way
aspirations to legal grants of chartered status might be satisfied in due
course — an obviously deliberate policy on the part of the imperial
authority. The urbanization process continued in the Lower German
military zone and in Gallia Belgica, proceeding from south to north,
while in the Upper German military zone west of the Rhine there was no
significant progress at all. In the Agri Decumates not one single
settlement, even later on, was raised to the rank of co/onia: the town with
the highest legal status was the municipium of Arae Flaviae/Rottweil.

Under Claudius Trier perhaps and Cologne certainly were raised to
the status of coloniae. At Trier one might well imagine that Claudius, in
keeping with his policy i in other provinces, would simply raise the local
settlement to the rank of colonia and make Roman citizens of its peregrine
inhabitants, drawn from the upper echelons of the Treveri; Colonia
Claudia Ara Agrippinensium/Cologne, on the other hand, was made up
of veteran colonists. That does not mean of course that a few Ubian
notables were not to be found amongst the new citizens. There will
certainly have been such instances — perhaps even nobles from the right
bank of the Rhine as well. Without them, the institutional Romanization
of the region would not have proceeded as quickly as it did in the period
that followed. But the new co/onia at Cologne, founded in A.D. 50, lay on

31 Dio xtvt. so, ef. ch. 13d, pp. 469-70.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 14-90 531

the Rhine between the legionary garrisons. There was consequently a
strong enough veteran presence nearby for it to have been taken into
consideration. Many of the first generation of Cologne’s new citizens,
Mediterranean by origin, certainly migrated to the south again. Perhaps
there were later additions to the citizen body of Cologne under the
Flavians and Trajan. Perhaps the ‘domino’ effect which we have seen
under Claudius was behind the capital of the Cugerni or Ciberni at
Xanten (?Cibernodunum) obtaining the status of a municipium. At any
rate, under Trajan it was given colonial status as the Colonia Ulpia
Traiana, perhaps in 98, but certainly by 104. At the same time the
administrative centre of the Batavians became an Ulpian municipium. The
last act of municipalization falls in the reign of Hadrian or Pius. Roman
chartered town status was extended to the territory of the Cananefates
where a municipium Aelium (Municipium Aelium Cananefatium) was
created near the coast.

The elite core of the Roman army, the Rhine legions, remained
completely Mediterranean, while the east Gaulish-Rhenish nobility
could only aspire to Roman citizenship through serving in the higher
ranks of the auxiliaries. If, in Caesar’s case, fear of the adversary was still
a factor, it soon ceased to be. Even the catastrophic defeat in the
Teutoburg Forest (A.D. 9) did not re-awaken the old Cimbric terror of
the Germans. The decision against conquest as far as the Elbe was clearly
taken on fully rational grounds; aemulatio Caesaris was confined to
spectacular engineering achievements, like the copying of his exploits in
bridging the Rhine. The latter became a kind of fashion among the
commanding officers of the Upper and Lower German armies in the first
half of the first century, undertaken on the part of the Rhine which
Caesar had twice crossed in a remarkably short time. It is conceivable
that every legate of Germania who strove for another posting and had
military ambitions bridged the Rhine in Caesarian fashion as the pinnacle
of his career in Germany.

The official view of the German opposition across the Rhine,
particularly in the northern sector, was the logical reverse of that
attitude: there was no broad defence in depth in the hinterland. The left
bank which had been the old springboard for the conquest of Germania
served everywhere as a defensive line against a possible German attack.
To deploy the troops ‘per ripam Rheni’, as it was probably expressed,
without the tactical support of the legionary reserves on the lines of
penetration to the south into the heart of Gaul, meant (assuming, as we
surely must, a realistic evaluation by the Roman military planners) that
for the Roman army the German opposition on the right bank of the
Rhine represented a negligible factor: land and adversary were simply
not worth the trouble of occupation, and any hostile movements close by

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

532 13f. GERMANY

could be easily reconnoitred from bases on the Rhine itself. Accordingly
no legionary garrisons were required in Besancon or Trier, in Tongeren
or Bavay; the only exception was the legionary deployment on the upper
Rhine, a shifting pattern between Vindonissa/Windisch on the Aare,
Argentorate/Strasbourg and Mirebeau, an earlier posting of the Stras-
bourg garrison south-westward toward Langres. All that seemed necess-
ary was to hold auxiliary garrisons in north-east Gaul to extinguish
possible local uprisings in the Gallic hinterland of the frontier. This
tactical deployment came to an end in the 80s. In general the idea of
maintaining in reserve a striking force drawn from the legionary
garrisons away from the frontier was kept for the more serious
Opposition in Britain, Syria and north Africa.

The result of the Tiberio-Claudian arrangement along a river frontier
stretching over 1,000km from Basle to Valkenburg (with offshoots on
the right bank for military advances in Upper Germany) would have
been a handicap if the enemy had been really strong. Not just in A.D. 69/
70, but in 260 and 274 too, the frontier line was successfully penetrated;
the attacks were driven home deep into the heart of the Gallic provinces
and, in 274, right through to Spain. This frontier system was not
designed against a powerful enemy.

The situation among the tribes on and in the vicinity of the left bank of
the Rhine, even under Nero, remained one of considerable variety, so
increasing Romanization is hard to recognize among those ranked below
the aristocracy whose members had been given grants of Roman
citizenship. Cananefates and Batavi were at first treated as foederati who
could independently raise their own troops, so neither tribe was subject
to Roman dilectus (levy), but both enjoyed the status of soci (allies). Their
capital was Batavodurum. In accordance with the principle that grants of
chartered town status spread northwards along the Rhine, the town will
have received the name of Ulpia Noviomagus (perhaps in 104) and the
right to hold a periodic market (as nundinarum) in the second half of the
second century. Together with the capital of the Cananefates it will have
been raised to the rank of manicipium. The Batavian units kept their
national character however and at least during the period under
consideration here (Augustus to Vespasian) they were in no sense the
melting-pot from which a new Roman citizenry arose.

The Frisians in the north had co-operated with the Romans from the
beginning. In the zos there was a visible tightening of the Roman
administrative grip on this area, but even under Tiberius interest in the
area relaxed. In a.p. 47 Cn. Domitius Corbulo again attempted to bring
about the formal subjection of the Frisian area. Though achieving some
success, this development was no longer in accord with the imperial
policy of Claudius, and the emperor ordered all military garrisons back

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 14-90 533

to the left bank of the Rhine.3? A chain of forts which is now attested in
the archaeological record was built along the Oude Rijn in Holland and
the Niederrhein in Germany. It can be recognized as a Lower German
limes on the left bank of the river, and represents a defensive measure to
protect Lower Germany in that it simultaneously excluded the right-
bank tribes from the empire and left them to fragment at the hands of
their own quarrelling aristocratic factions. The Bructeri were the
particular object of repeated successful Roman intervention until almost
the end of the first century, up to the time of Nerva’s governors of Lower
Germany. This did not, however, prevent free passage to the left bank of
the Rhine by unarmed right-bank Germans on a short-term basis.*3

‘North of the Lahn the Mattiaci (who like the Batavians are obviously
of Chattan origin) and the pro-Roman Germanic population of the
Wetterau appear on the scene as early as Germanicus’ time. There are
archaeological indications of settlement by Mattiaci round Wiesbaden in
a civitas Mattiacorum in the years following a.D. 16.4 Further south and
directly adjacent are the civitates of the Triboci who transferred under
Augustus to the left bank of the Rhine, and of the Nemetes and
Vangiones who were integrated into the empire in the reign of Claudius
at the latest. Their old homes beyond the frontier on the right bank of the
Rhine appear to have been taken over by Elbe Germanic groups whose
names we do not know.

The Upper Rhine in contrast to the Lower Rhine clearly represents a
single settlement zone which has its western border in the Vosges and its
eastern on the Black Forest ridge. As a result, from Augustus’ day the
Rhine was not conceived as a frontier, but was constantly being crossed
by troops and controlled civilians. That continued to be true until the
definitive establishment of Roman government in the Agri Decumates,
that is the area between the Rhine and the Upper German /imes. Here,
groups of settlers filtered in, but they were evidently not politically
organized; Tacitus, amongst others, assures us of that.%5

The frontier situation in the two German provinces was characterized
by and large by an effective Roman border control and good trading
contacts with the Germans on the right bank of the Rhine. At the same
time there was an absence of any strong Roman pressure for a
thoroughgoing Romanization. The framework of native society in the
Germanies was comparatively strong. The impact of Romanization on
them, however, was very weak: in default of that, control was main-
tained by the iron grip of a large concentration of Roman forces along
the whole riverbank. After the death of Nero both German military
zones were the stage for a three-year drama, an internal upheaval which

32 Tac. Aan. x1.19. 33 Tac. Ann. x111.56.2. 34 Baatz and Herrmann 1982 (E $69) $3-
3% Tac. Hist. 1v.32, 37, 67-

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

534 13f. GERMANY

was supported by right-bank interests and is known by the name of the
Batavian revolt.

The revolt demonstrates the surprising talents of the native leaders
among the nobility of the left-bank tribes, from the Cananefates to the
Lingones. They looked to their own special interests and those of their
respective followers, often with great adroitness, and so far as the
Batavian ringleader Iulius Civilis is concerned, perhaps also with some
political success. This shows that either Rome did not succeed in
suppressing, or the military leadership on the Rhine did not choose to
suppress, or neutralize, the political gifts and instincts of the rich
Rhenish nobility. There can be no question but that the interests of the
left-bank tribal nobility lay in the maintenance of imperial unity, though
Tacitus felt able to declare the revolt to be a ‘bellum externum’ in view of
the particular form of the treaty arrangement between Rome and the
Batavians.* So it may be seen that Romanization was making good
progress among the aristocracy, at least after the reigns of Claudius and
Nero. The strong Mediterranean element in the culture of the military
rested like a thick blanket over every archaeologically tangible expres-
sion of the indigenous substratum. In the course of the second century,
however, the army took on a strongly Gallic character and this period
affords us our first uninterrupted view of a Germanic and Gallo-Roman
civil population.

% Tac. Hist. rv.22.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 13g

RAETIA

H. WOLFF

At first glance it is an astonishing fact that Rome did not conquer the
Alpine region and the southern German foothills of the Alps before 15
B.C., although she had already seized power over northern Italy more
than 200 years before. This was, however, perfectly in accord with the
Roman conception of security and foreign policy: principally it required
reaction to military threats, which could manifest themselves either in
hostile attacks on Rome or on her allies and would thus provoke a
military crisis, or simply in the form of a mere display of power by an
alien nation, that is one which only potentially jeopardized Roman
security interests. As a rule, Rome did not take the initiative in
attempting to obtain possession of specific areas as a consequence of
internal policy decisions, although exceptions occur with increasing
frequency during the late Republic. As a matter of fact, there was no
important power in the region of the Alps and their northern foothills on
which Roman foreign policy might focus. Apart from raids by small
bands, which could radiate from the prehistoric tribal world at any time
and in any place, the Alpine tribes had never threatened northern Italy.

The peoples of the Alps were dissipated into a multitude of smaller
tribes or valley dwellers, who were in fact partly interconnected by
linguistic and cultural bonds, although not by significant socio-political
ties. No larger tribal agglomerations (such as a single tribal unit of all
Raetians) had developed and there had been no bigger settlements of an
urban type except in the Vindelician area north of the Alps. These tribes
had learned literacy from the Italians, especially the Etruscans, and they
used it for dedicatory, burial and building inscriptions. But this literacy
was apparently not accompanied by the development of a system of
administration.

Rome had at least conquered some of the valleys to the south of the
Alps during the first century 3.c. Particularly noteworthy is the growth
of Tridentum, a municipium Iulium, which underwent significant develop-
ment under Caesar or Augustus at the latest; the latter had an important
building erected here, possibly in 23 B.c. Between the Lex Pompeia of
the years 89-87 B.c. and Augustus, even the Anauni, Sinduni and

535

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

“RAETIA’ BEFORE CLAUDIUS 537

Tulliassi, who lived in the western side-valleys of the Adige (Etsch), had
been attached to the ‘town’ by adtributio.! Noricum, which comprised the
tribal units of the eastern Tyrol (Osttirol), Carinthia (Karnten) and
Styria (Steiermark), had never been hostile to Italian traders and had
usually maintained a peaceful attitude towards Rome. On the other
hand, the tribes of the Alpine foothills, for the most part probably Celtic,
suffered severely from raids by German warriors from Suebian Thu-
ringia, Brandenburg and Saxony. The oppida of Manching, Kehlheim
and Passau as well as the open settlement of Berching-Pollanten (situated
north of Ingolstadt) had, according to the recently established chrono-
logy, undoubtedly been destroyed by those bands in about 50-40 B.c.

In 15 B.c. Rome’s interests in the central Alps and the Alpine foothills
were only indirect. This was a consequence of the change in policy
concerning Germany east of the Rhine — a redefinition which had
primarily been caused by the defeat of M. Lollius: in order to deny the
Germans the possibility of escaping southwards to Italy when attacked,
Rome had to control the central Alps and their foothills. In contrast, the
attacks of the ‘Kammunioi’ (Camunni) and the ‘Vennioi’ on the one
hand and of some Noricans and Pannonians further in the east on the
other (countered by P. Silius Nerva as proconsul of Illyria in 16 B.c. and
avenged with the subjugation of the three Alpine peoples)? had probably
played only a peripheral role of specious justification for the campaign of
15 B.C.; this gave Tiberius and Drusus, the two stepsons of Augustus, the
opportunity of winning military glory cheaply and easily.

I. ‘RAETIA’ BEFORE CLAUDIUS

The military details of the campaign of conquest in 15 B.C. are fiercely
disputed in scholarly literature and cannot at present be conclusively
elucidated with the evidence available. The principal difficulty is that the
order of the defeated tribes as listed in the only detailed source, the
inscription of the Tropaeum Alpium at La Turbie (near Monaco),
cannot be definitively interpreted, because in too many cases the precise
location of the tribal unit is unknown. From the evidence of Cassius Dio,
Horace and other authors‘ it is nevertheless possible to reconstruct at
least some essential features of the Roman action, which, because of the
geographical conditions in the Alps, must have consisted of several
independent and well-co-ordinated operations. Drusus and the main
body of his forces attacked advancing from the Adige valley, where he

' Tulia Tridentum in AE 1984, 707; building: ILS 86; on the Anauni-edict (ILS 206) cf. Th.
Mommsen, Gesommelte Schriften 4 (Berlin, 1906) 291-311; E. Frézouls, Ktema 6 (1981) 239-52, esp.
243. 2 Dio xiv. 20.1-2. 3 Pliny, HN 111.136, CIL v 7817 = EJ? qo.

4 Dio uiv.22; Hor. Carn. 1v.4; 1v.14; Strab. tv. 6.8 (206C); vit.t.5 (292C); Vell. Pat. 11.95.16.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

538 13g. RAETIA

fought the first major battle up-river from Trento. From there he moved
forward into the valley of the Inn, certainly using the Reschenscheideck
as well as the Brenner Pass. Possibly one of his subordinate commanders
penetrated into the Alpine Rhine valley over the Spliigen Pass or the
Maloja-Julier from Lake Como. A little later, Tiberius advanced by an
unknown route, on which he had to face Raetians of the interior Alpine
region, towards other hostile tribes, against whom he is assumed to have
fought at Lake Constance and elsewhere. In a day’s march from Lake
Constance he is supposed to have reached the headwaters of the Danube
(whatever is meant by this). On 1 August, the anniversary of the capture
of Alexandria,> the two brothers defeated the remaining enemies in a
major battle. These might have been the Vindelicians and other tribes of
the Alpine foothills, of whom, if we may believe Strabo,® the Rukantioi
(Runicates?) and the Kotuantioi (Cosuanetes?) belonged to the Raetian
language-group. Of the tribes of adjacent Noricum, the Ambisontes
were subdued by Drusus, possibly in the Salzach valley. Thus, in the
course of a single summer’s campaign Roman arms reached their target,
and the two stepsons were able to bring the laurel of victory to Augustus
in Gaul — giving Horace sufficient reason to praise the three of them to
the skies. After that war we know of no anti-Roman revolts. The Alpine
peoples wisely bowed to the superior power of Rome.

The most important political result of the campaign was the establish-
ment of Rome’s military presence in the northern Alpine foothills. For a
few years — at most from about 15/14 B.C. to 8 B.c. — the greater part of a
legion, probably the Nineteenth which later perished with Varus in the
Teutoburg Forest (Wiehengebirge), was moved, together with auxiliary
troops, to Dangstetten on the northern bank of the upper Rhine
(opposite Tenedo/Zurzach). Further, a line of communication running
along the Limmat, the Zurichsee and the Walensee to the Alpine Rhine
valley was secured with several watch-towers. After the death of Drusus

-Dangstetten was abandoned and at the same time — an important
weapons site (Oberhausen, now part of the city of Augsburg) was
founded at the confluence of the Wertach and the Lech. It existed until
about A.D. 9 (or perhaps even A.D. 14-17) and should perhaps be
explained in connexion with the recently discovered legionary fortress of
Marktbreit-upon-Main. The Alpine foothills and the southern German
region in general, however, were apparently not an important base for
the attempted pacification of free Germany. The insignificant amount of
military precaution in evidence seems more likely to have been intended
for flank defence, a role which was assigned to the Upper German army.
Surprisingly, the eastern part of the Bavarian Alpine foothills, especially
the region where the river Inn flows out into the diluvial hilly country,
5 Hor. Carm. tv.14.34ff; Vell. Pat. 1195.2. © 1v.6.8 (206C).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

“RAETIA’ BEFORE CLAUDIUS $39

remained unnoticed (just as the northern part of Noricum received no
attention in the Augustan period): for unknown reasons, the Suebi and
other German bands seem even in the Caesarean and Augustan periods
to have been more attracted by the region now called Suebia.

As regards the imposition of an administration, the organization of
newly annexed areas proceeded slowly and hesitantly during the first two
generations after the conquest. In this respect Raetia can again be
compared to Noricum: for the period of legionary occupation, we have
evidence for a /egatus pro [pr(aetore) ijn Vindol(icis) together with his
subordinate native prefect of the cohors Trumplinorum.’ From the reign of
Augustus (before A.D. 2) we probably have evidence of a former
equestrian officer as procurator Caesaris Augusti in Vindalicis et Raetis et in
valle Poenina per annos IIII (‘procurator of Caesar Augustus in Vindelicia
and Raetia and the Poenine Valley for four years’).8 To approximately
the same social rank belonged a former primipilus of the lower German
legio X XI Rapax, who discharged his duties in the central region of the
Alps early in the reign of Tiberius as prafef(ectus)] Raetis Vindolicis
vallifs P]oeninae et levis armatur(ae) (‘prefect of the Raetians and the
Vindelicians and the Poenine Valley and the light-armed auxiliaries’).9
Thus the central Alpine region apparently had no provincial governor
before Claudius and still seems not fully to have been a province at that
time: with the exception of the receipt of tribute,!° which the tribes paid
peaceably from 15/14 B.c., and the military supervision of light auxiliary
troops including the native militia (/evis armatura),'' no obviously major
administrative tasks or positions were created. So the title of the Roman
representative might have alternated between procurator and praefectus,
probably depending on the individual officer’s previous career. We
certainly should not expect that the later area of the province of Raetia at
this time possessed clearly drawn borders with the German military
command, with the external tribes and with what was to become the
province of Noricum. Only on the border with Italy do we have to take
into account a definitive territorial delimitation, because in this region
the territories attached to the coloniae and municipia by adtributio must
have been clearly defined; but even here the Claudian edict on the Anauni
counsels caution.!2 The large federated civitas of the Helvetii, the small
tribes of their former entourage (the Latobriges, Rauraci and Tulingi)
and the two colonies of their former areas, certainly belonged to the
administration of Gaul, whereas the Norican tribes in some way
remained in their own regnum. Before the comprehensive organization of

7 CIL v ag1o=ILS 847 = EJ? 241. § ILS goo7 = EJ? 224.

> CIL 1x 3044 = ILS 2689 = EJ? 244. 10 Strab. 1v.6.9 (206C).

1 If the castellum Ircavium was situated in the area of the province of Raetia as it was later defined,

CIL xin 1041 = ILS 2531 would attest such a unit of militia, the gaesati DC Raeti.
2 ILS 206 =GCN 368.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

540 13g. RAETIA

the western Alps, therefore, the most sensible solution was to join the
Valais (vallis Poenina) to the central Alpine region.

For military reasons the central Alpine region urgently needed roads.
Drusus had already marked out the later Via Claudia Augusta from the
Po to the Danube. This might similarly have been the case for the roads
over the Spliigen or Julier Passes. Even the road leading from Bregenz
through Kempten, Epfach and Gauting and finally to Iuvavum/Salz-
burg, belongs to those early years. Whatever the details, according to
Strabo at any rate,!3 Augustus was responsible for fundamental impro-
vements to the Alpine roads and the passes.

Continuity of occupation by the pre-Roman population cannot be
demonstrated in the archaeological record. But Cassius Dio! specifically
tells us that the conquered area was highly populous and that Rome for
that reason recruited most of the young men into auxiliary formations
and posted them out of the region, leaving only sufficient manpower for
agricultural work. Amongst other tasks they fought under Germanicus
against the Germans. In contrast, Rome seems to have shown great
restraint in reforming the civil institutions of the tribal units. Nor did she
attempt to promote the legal or socio-cultural Romanization of the
Raetians and the Celts. There is no foundation of colonies, and even the
construction of urban centres for the established tribes progressed only
slowly. Not until the second decade after the conquest do archaeological
discoveries attest the beginnings of urban settlements. As far as we can
see, these were not developments of pre-Roman settlements, and the
artefacts which have come to light give the impression of the presence of
Roman manual workers and traders, who seem newly to have immi-
grated from the Mediterranean. These settlements are mostly situated on
the northern side of the Alps: Chur (Curia), Bregenz (Brigantium),
Kempten (Cambodunum), Auerberg (probably Damasia), Epfach (Abo-
diacum), Augsburg (Augusta Vindelicum) and Gauting (Bratananium).
Brigantium, Cambodunum and Damasia had, according to Strabo,’5
been the po/eis of the Brigantii, Estiones and the Licates. But Cambodu-
num alone seems to have been planned in the Roman manner, whereas
the thriving ‘town’ on the Auerberg, lasting only one generation, had
actually been situated, astonishingly, at the altitude of 1,00om. The
contribution of the military seems to have been small: only in Bregenz
and in Rederzhausen near Augsburg have fortresses of the Tiberian
period been found, whereas the other sites have yielded military
equipment merely in the form of scattered finds; here, however, we have
to allow for the possibility that these were merely locations for the
manufacture or repair of military implements. If that were so, the central
Alpine foothills and the mountains would hardly have been controlled at

13 1v.6.6 (204C). 4 Lrv.22.5. 5 1v.6.8 (206C).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CLAUDIAN PROVINCE 541

all during the reign of Tiberius by Roman occupying forces — the closest
military force was the legion which was stationed in the fortress of
Vindonissa/Windisch after A.p. 16/17. Nor do we know of any new
settlements in the Augustan—Tiberian period in the Inn valley, the upper
Adige valley, the eastern part of the later province of Raetia, or along the
Danube. In the early imperial period the centre of Raetia lay in Suebia.

From the economic and fiscal point of view, what was to be the
province of Raetia was not enticing — apart from a certain strategic
importance for the German campaigns this area was apparently of no
genuine worth to Rome.

II. THE CLAUDIAN PROVINCE

It was probably Claudius who abandoned Rome’s reservations with
regard to the Alpine region, assuming that we refuse to credit Caligula
(who is supposed to have planned to build a city high up in the
mountains)!6 with such a degree of practicality and astuteness. One
reason for the change in Roman attitudes may have been the more
advanced state of development in Upper Germany and Pannonia, which
gave an increased importance to the communication lines on and along
the Danube. By now a massive dislocation of auxiliary units along the
Danube had taken place and it was probably more logical to place the
Raetian units under their own provincial governor. An attempt to
improve the organization of the administrative machinery fits our
general impression of the emperor Claudius and his interests.

Claudius sent an equestrian procurator to Raetia and Vindelicia.
Because the troops which this official had under his command at this
early stage included Roman citizens (at that time at least the cobors I civium
Romanorum ingenuorum), the first known praesidial procurator (procur(a-
tor) Augustor(um)) held the additional title of pro /eg(ato) provinciai
Raitiai et Vindelic(iai) et vallis Poenin(ai).\7 He had his residence
presumably in Kempten, not yet in Augsburg which at that time was
only slowly developing into a ‘town’. Under Claudius the Valais (va/lis
Poenina) probably remained separate from ‘Raetia et Vindelicia’ and was
united with the Alpes Graiae as another procuratorial province. It was at
this time, at the very latest, that the border was defined. In the north it
followed the Danube, in the east the Inn, before turning to the south,
soon after entering the Alps, and then making a final bend to the west,
south of the Puster valley. The southern border with Italy ran for the
most part along the heights of the Alpine watershed, but it included in
Raetia the upper Isarco and Adige valleys up to Klausen and Merano, as
well as the Tessine up to Bellinzona. The western border with Gallia
Belgica and Upper Germany ran from St Gotthard to Mt Todi and Mt

16 Suet. Calig. 21. "7 CIL v 3936=ILS 1548.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

542 13g. RAETIA

Glirnisch, passing between Ziirichsee and Walensee to the north, then
crossing the Rhine west of Tasgetium (Eschenz) and finally reaching the
Danube east of Tuttlingen.'8

The fortifications along the Danube were possibly first created at the
end of the 30s A.D., even before the formal establishment of the province;
in that case, the legion stationed at Vindonissa was probably in charge of
this construction, because the line of fortresses had the function of
safeguarding its right flank. The fortress of Aislingen together with the
two small fortresses of Nersingen and Burlafingen are the earliest camps
on the Danube so far known, dating back to late Tiberian times. Not
very much later, in about A.D. 40, or between 4o and 5o, the entire chain
of fortresses from Emerkingen to Oberstimm (perhaps even as far as
Weltenburg) was built. But again we have no evidence of camps in the
interior Alpine region, which suggests that Roman rule was not
threatened by internal unrest. Together with the camps, in whose
surroundings soon civilian settlements (vici) developed, the roads which
had earlier been delineated were upgraded and strengthened. This, in
fact is attested only for the Via Claudia Augusta’? in 46, but, because a
corresponding need existed, it is reasonable to hypothesise the same
development for the other south—north and west—east connexions, as far
as and along the Danube.

The most important issue for our understanding of the civil administ-
ration is the question of how long the tribal units (civitates), which
survived from pre-Roman times, continued in existence. This seems to
be of fundamental importance, because there was no Roman ‘town’ in
the province except the later, Hadrianic municipium Aelium Augusta
Vindelicum and, apart from the civitas Curia and the civitates which are
assumed to have existed around Brigantium and Cambodunum, no other
local towns of peregrine status are attested; Curia, Brigantium and
Cambodunum at least (as well as Augusta, later on) developed an urban
character of a kind during the first century. To judge from the stated
origines of soldiers, the Runicates, the Catenates and recently the Licates,
seem to be attested as regional administrative bodies for the second half
of the first century a.D. or even the second century a.p.29 Further the
Breones, whom Strabo claims to have been Illyrians, are still attested as a
political unit in the sixth century.2! This justifies the belief that a
comparatively large number of pre-Roman civitates continued to exist as

18 Many of the precise details of the route are open to dispute. Since its course had to be traced ina
variety of sources covering the entire Roman period (some as late as the sixth century a.p.), it is
impossible, except in the case of the frontier with the external tribes, to specify precisely what
changes in the position of the borders may have occurred from time to time.

19 CIL v 8002-3 (cf. ILS 208).

2 Licates: RMD 119; AE 1988, 905. Runicates: AE 1940, 114. Catenates: AE 1935, 103.

21 Cf. Heuberger 1932 (£ 621) 149-67. Strab. 1v.6.8 (206C).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CLAUDIAN PROVINCE $43

local units and to deal with the local administration of their own citizenry
even as late as the middle Empire.” Most of them obviously did not
develop urban centres and perhaps for that reason have left no inscrip-
tions. It is consequently impossible to locate all of these tribes accurately;
we may only argue with some degree of probability that those of the
Licates who were not absorbed by the municipium Augusta Vindelicum had
settled on the upper Lech not far away from the Alps. With the end of the
settlement on the Auerberg ¢. a.p. 40, Abodiacum (Epfach) may
eventually have gained the position of capital of the Licates. The
remainder of the tribes of the Alpine foothills listed on the Tropaeum
Alpium or mentioned by Strabo and Ptolemy probably lived near the
principal chain of the Alps, thus possibly leaving the northern part of
Lower Bavaria to a large extent unpopulated during the early first
century A.D.

The Illyrian customs stations (pablicum portorium Illyrici) in Passau
(Boiodurum) and Pfaffenhofen (Pons Aeni) were certainly established in
the reign of Claudius. Further detailed information for early Raetian
economic and social history is not available, however, because the native
population which certainly existed and which had mainly been an
agricultural one, scarcely appears in our sources. In the attested
settlements, which were about to take on some characteristics of urban
centres, craft and trade certainly predominated. We hear but little of an
upper stratum; especially noteworthy is the family of Claudius Paternus
Clementianus from the vicinity of Epfach, whose parents received the
Roman citizenship from Claudius (or possibly Nero) and who himself
rose to procuratorships under Trajan or Hadrian.23 For whatever
reasons, we again have no evidence from the Alpine region and eastern
Raetia for this social stratum.

Similarly we know scarcely anything of the political history of the
province. In a.p. 14 the Suebi are supposed to have threatened the
Alpine foothills and veterans of the rebellious German army were
therefore sent against them.”4 In the year 69 the province was inevitably
dragged into the struggles for power between Otho, Vitellius and
Vespasian. The decision of the Raetian troops in favour of Vitellius and
the Norican troops in favour of Otho and Vespasian was connected with
the respective commitment of the German and Pannonian armies: until
long into the second century the orientation of Raetia was to the West.
For that reason in 69 the Raetian troops, including the local militia of the
province, were instructed to attack the rebellious Helvetians?5 and were
probably then removed to Italy. Later the Raetian and Norican troops
found themselves facing each other across the Inn, though without

2 For another possible solution see Wolff 1986 (E 643) 166f.
33 Pflaum 1960 (D 59) 150 dis (61). 24 Tac. Ann. 1.44.4. 28 Tac. Hist. 1.67.2; 68.1~2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

544 13g. RAETIA

coming to blows.% And after Vespasian’s victory, when the Norican
troops were moved to be deployed in the area of the Batavian revolt,?’
they may have destroyed the hostile Raetian camps as well as Augsburg,
Kempten and Bregenz. At least, that is one conclusion which scholars
have drawn from the existence of destruction levels at these sites. The
reality may have been much more complicated but such uncertainty is
characteristic of the politically marginal situation of this province, of
which the historiographic tradition tells us hardly anything, except
incidentally.

2% Tac. Hist. 11.5.2. 2 Tac. Hist. tv.70.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 134

THE DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

J.J. WILKES

I. THE ADVANCE TO THE DANUBE AND BEYOND, 43 B.C.—A.D. 6

‘Magnum est stare in Danubii ripa’ proclaimed the Younger Pliny to the
emperor Trajan. An approach to the river, either dilated in the plains or
surging awesomely in one of its several gorges, rarely fails to stir the
imagination. The river Danube figures in some of Europe’s oldest
myths, some from remote prehistory, such as the tale of the returning
Argonauts sailing upstream from the Black Sea to the Adriatic.
Throughout history conquerors and their armies have exulted at gaining
the river, though perhaps none more emphatically than the emperor
Augustus who boasted in his Res Gestae of the advance, achieved by his
stepson and legate Tiberius Nero, of the boundaries of Illyricum to the
bank of the Danube. Not until the middle course of the Danube had been
secured could Rome hold and exploit the overland route between Italy
and her eastern territories.! That remains today the principal land route

1 Greek and Latin authors and inscriptions on stone are the principal sources for the Danube
lands in the Julio-Claudian era. For the narrative of conquest Appian’s lengthy description of the
campaigns of 35-33 8.C., I//. x1v—xxvutt, is based directly on a memoir composed by Octavian.
Velleius Paterculus’ account, 11.110-16, of the Pannonian uprising of a.p. 6-9 drew on his
experiences as an officer on the staff of Tiberius for a part of that period, alchough his promised full-
scale account of the conquest of Dalmatians and Pannonians (1.96.3) was, it appears, never
completed. Save for a full description of the Danube campaigns of Licinius Crassus in 29-28 B.c.,
LI.23.2-27, the Roman Flistory of Cassius Dio furnishes little more than occasional summaries, often
with the events of several years compressed into a few sentences, for example under 16 B.c.,
Liv.20,1-3. The Lives of Suetonius, the Epitome of Livy’s History, along with the works of later
compilers such as Florus, Ruftus Festus and Orosius, can furnish significant detail although, in the
case of the latter, are just as likely to import confusion. For some periods the written record is
seriously deficient, above all for the years 9 B.C. to A.D. 4, where some folios are missing from the MS
of Cassius Dio while Velleius was not disposed to discuss military activities when his hero Tiberius
was off the scene. From the accession of Tiberius the Annals of Tacitus provide valuable accounts of
affairs in Thrace and among the Suebic Germans north of Pannonia, while the Histories record the
Sarmatian attacks on Moesia during A.D. 69. Finally two contemporary writers also contribute to the
record, albeit in a rather different manner. From his bleak exile in Tomis the poet Ovid furnishes a
picture of life close to the lower Danube. The geographer Strabo provides valuable accounts of the
indigenous population of the area, their history, habits and economy, in the course of which are
many valuable references to recent Roman campaigns.

The evidence from inscriptions increases towards the end of the period. There is little for the wars
of Augustus, save for passages in the Res Gestae and a few texts relating to the activities of his legates,
for example ILS 918 and 8956. By the period of Claudius the numbers of military epitaphs in

545

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

548 134, DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

between Europe and the Middle East, via Zagreb, Belgrade, Ni3, and
Sofia to Istanbul, or south from Nis via Skopje and Thessalonica to
Athens. For nearly four centuries this highway was the principal military
axis of the Roman empire, notably in the recurrent episodes of civil war,
from the turmoil of a.D. 68-9 which followed the end of the Julio-
Claudians to the great conflicts of the fourth century which troubled the
dynasties of Constantine and Valentinian. Theodosius I, the last to rule
over a united Roman empire, was in A.D. 394 the last reigning emperor to
travel the overland route between East and West.?

The province of Pannonia, and within it above all the region of the
lower Drava and Sava around Mursa and Sirmium, was the keystone of
the empire’s defensive arch against the northern peoples between the
Black Sea and the northern Ocean. When that fell the interests of the
eastern and western halves of the empire soon diverged. In the pact at
Brundisium in 4o B.c. the Illyrian town of Scodra near the Adriatic had
been designated to mark the boundary between Octavian’s West and
Antony’s East. In reality the frontier was the near impassable mountain
barrier of the north-south watershed through Bosnia, Montenegro and
Albania. It became evident that these areas and their sturdy inhabitants
could only be subdued by approaches from the encircling plains to the
north, from the direction of Zagreb and Belgrade. That could not even
be attempted until the overland route across the middle Danube basin
had been secured. By the middle years of Augustus this had been
achieved, a notable success for the new army recruited after Actium. Its

Noricum, Pannonia and Dalmatia, are sufficient to indicate the identities and locations of legions
and auxiliary units, while the military production of stamped bricks and tiles appears to commence
around the same time. The inscriptions from the Danube lands were first assembled by Th.
Mommsen for volume 111 of CIL, published in 1873 with supplements in 1902. This is now being
supplemented and, for some provinces, superseded, by new collections. Inscriptions recorded from
the former Yugoslavia between 1902 and 1970 are collected in the three volumes of ILIxg, while
those from Moesia Superior are currently being entirely republished (IMS). It is to be regretted that
most of the modern collections tend to be defined by modern frontiers, for example Hungary (RIU),
Bulgaria ([GBxlg), Greece (ILGR) and Romania (IDR and ISM). In the matter of coin evidence the
presence of Roman issues among the hoards from the Danube lands is now well documented, as are
the local Celtic, Dacian and Thracian issues. The function and significance of the latter have been
much debated; for a recent discussion see Crawford 1985 (B 320) 219-39.

Archaeological investigations, most undertaken since the Second World War, have furnished
evidence for the plans, principal buildings and adjoining cemeteries of several Roman cities, though
many important discoveries have yet to be fully recorded and published. Many military sites along
the Danube have also been examined, although the earliest levels of occupation are rarely
penetrated. In recent years there has been a great deal of valuable work on the classification and
distribution of important Roman pottery, including amphorae and terra sigiliata table-ware, notably
in the former Yugoslavia and Hungary, which has aided the location of garrisons and settlements of
this period. As a rule the archacological evidence consists of imports or products of Roman origin
which owe little or nothing to indigenous traditions of the Danube lands. For many areas this seems
to be a true reflection of the state of relations between the invaders, soldiers and settlers, and the
native peoples throughout the Julio-Claudian era.

2 Pliny, Pan. 18.1; RG 30.1. 3 App. BCi. v.65.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

43 B.C.—A.D. 6 549

strategic value was to be amply demonstrated when it held firm, though
only just, during the rebellion of Pannonia in a.p. 6-9. While the deeds
of Drusus, Germanicus and Arminius stirred the imagination of poets
and panegyricists the truth was that in the reckoning Germany beyond
the Rhine was expendable and was finally discarded in a.p. 15/16. Not so
Illyricum and the Danube.

The Balkans witnessed the death-agony of the Roman Republic in the
aftermath of Caesar’s murder. The Senate granted command in Illyri-
cum, Macedonia and Achaea, to Brutus, who delegated his authority to
Q. Hortensius Hortalus, proconsul in Macedonia. Caesar’s former
lieutenant P. Vatinius ended his operations against the Delmatae around
Narona and returned to Rome, where he celebrated an Illyrian triumph
on 31 July 42 B.c. The republicans found allies among Illyrians and
Thracians, although a rash attempt to march from northern Italy to
Macedonia by Decimus Brutus met its inevitable end among the
Iapodes. The pact at Brundisium in September 40 B.c. left Illyricum
under Octavian and Macedonia under Antony. The latter ordered
attacks on the Illyrian Parthini, the allies of Brutus, and the Dardani, a
perpetual menace to Macedonia. For victories over the Parthini a
triumph was awarded to Asinius Pollio but neither the commander nor
the outcome of Antony’s Be/lum Dardanicum happen to be on record and
may indeed have been suppressed by his rival.4

In the domain of Octavian the expansion of Dacia under Burebista had
reawakened in Italy the old fear of invasion from the north east. It was no
accident that the reported schemes of Philip V of Macedon to direct the
ferocious Bastarnae overland against Italy figured prominently in the
history of Livy, a native of Patavium. Burebista was now dead and his
realm divided between four or five rulers, most no more than shadows in
the historical record, Comoiscus, Coson, Cotiso and Dicomes, the first
three ruling in south-west Dacia, the last in the south east. The triumvir’s
belated victory over Sextus Pompeius at Naulochus on 3 September 36
B.C. was acclaimed far away among Roman settlers in Illyricum$ but it
was not to be long before that region became the scene of Roman
campaigning. Caesar’s heir devoted two full seasons of operations
against peoples beyond the Adriatic (see p. 172), though for reasons
largely unconnected with affairs in that quarter. In 35 B.c. a march

4 Ancient sources relating to Roman commanders are collected in MRR vol. 11 (down to 30 B.c.),
in PIR? which has currently reached the letter O and also in the Latereuli Praesidum compiled by
Thomasson 1975-84 (D 110). The siege equipment captured from D. Brutus in 43 B.c., Dio
XLVI.§3.2, was used eight years later by the lapodes against Octavian, App. I//. xvi. Before his
operations against the Parthini, Asinius Pollio may have attacked the Delmatae and seized Salona,
bur the sources are late and confused. Some have rejected the story, e.g. Syme 1979 (A 94) 1 18-30,
while others have accepted it, Bosworth 1972 (c 34) 464-8. Antony’s attack on the Dardani is noted
in App. BCiv. v.75. 5 CIL m1 14265: ‘Sicilia recepta’.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

550 134. DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

through the Iapodes and Pannonians left a garrison of twenty-five
cohorts at Siscia. There was some talk of an advance against the Dacians,
and this may have been the occasion of a reported contact with Cotiso,
which provoked Antony’s subsequent alliance with Dicomes. In the
next year the Delmatae were attacked and some hard fighting in the
valleys and forests behind Salona won a capitulation and return of the
standards captured from Caesar’s luckless general A. Gabinius at
Synodion in 48 B.c., though not before a winter blockade in 34/3 B.c.
maintained by one of Caesar’s leading field commanders. The register of
surrendered peoples suggests that the entire coast and hinterland
between Istria and Macedonia were now in Roman hands, though no
advance had yet been made against the Pannonian peoples across the
mountains, in the valleys of Bosnia, the Drava and the Sava.

For nearly twenty years following victory over the Delmatae, which
furnished Octavian with the first instalment of his triple triumph on 13
August 29 B.c., almost nothing is reported of events in the Danube
lands. The exception is Dio’s unusually full record of the campaigns in 29
and 28 B.c. by M. Crassus, proconsul in Macedonia with an army of four
legions. The first season saw victory over the Bastarnae near the Danube
at the river Ciabrus (Cibrica), in which the proconsul killed King Deldo
in personal combat. A triumph was decreed, though the title imperator
was denied. Moreover, there are grounds for suspecting that Crassus’
true achievement was a victory over the Dacians but that the record was
later distorted to avoid embarrassing Octavian. The next year saw action
in the northern Dobrudja which led to the recapture of Roman standards
seized by the Bastarnae more than thirty years before from C. Antonius,
Cicero’s disreputable colleague in the consulship of 63 B.c. Back in Rome
Crassus triumphed ‘over Thrace and the Getae’ on 4 July 27 B.c. but
there was no display of recaptured standards, and a claim for the
immensely prestigious spolia opima for his killing of the king was denied
on a constitutional technicality.6

During this period the troubled affairs of the kingdom of Thrace drew
Roman armies more than once into the area, a recurring pattern being
conflict between the Odrysae of the more settled east and the powerful
Bessi of the mountainous west. Though the Sapaean Rhoemetalces (I)
may have gained sole power in Thrace for his desertion of Antony before
Actium, he was to prove an effective ruler, whose long and prosperous
reign is reflected in a silver coinage minted to the standard of Roman

6 Dio xt. 23.2-27; cf. PIR? 186, with Mécsy 1966 (c 289) 511. The Dacian prisoners who fought
with Germans in the arena at Rome a few days after Octavian’s triumph, Dio 11.22.6—9, may have
been supplied by Crassus’ victory over the army of Cotiso, Hor. Carm. 111.8. On the affair of the spolia

opima see Syme 1939 (A 93) 308-9.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

43 B.C.—A.D. 6 ssl

denarii.” The affair of M. Primus, the governor of Macedonia accused of
making war against the Odrysae, reported by Cassius Dio under 22 B.c.,
remains no less obscure in its Balkan context than it is in politics at
Rome. We are on firmer ground with the activities of the consular M.
Lollius, whose intervention on behalf of Rhoemetalces, perhaps in 19/18
B.c., may have been the occasion for the transfer of the Macedonian army
to the new command of ‘Thrace and Macedonia’. Lollius’ successor may
have been L. Tarius Rufus, the consul of 16 B.c., who fought with the
Sarmatians, the first reported collision with these Iranian horsemen.®
The Balkan command may also have been entrusted to Tiberius
following his Alpine campaign in 15 B.c., for operations which brought
the Scordisci around Sirmium into a Roman alliance that was to prove
crucial in the subsequent conquest of the Pannonians. It is possible that
the engagement of the Balkan armies in the far north west caused the task
of crushing a major uprising by the Thracian Bessi to be assigned to L.
Piso with an army from the East. The bloody Thracian war lasted three
years, probably 12~10 B.c., during which the Romans recovered from
defeat to gain a victory which rewarded the commander with triumphal
honours.

Illyricum, not among the territories assigned to Caesar Augustus in 27
B.c., will presumably have been administered by proconsuls, though
none happens to be recorded. Dio’s summary of recent events under 16
B.c. refers to the operations of P. Silius Nerva against peoples of the
eastern Alps, in the course of which his legates repelled an attack on
Istria by Noricans and Pannonians. The province of Silius was not, it
seems, Illyricum but rather Transpadana which included Istria and
Liburnia. In the same passage Dio refers to an uprising in Dalmatia that
was soon dealt with, presumably by a proconsul. The overland connex-
ion between Italy and the Balkans was achieved by Tiberius in the Be/lum
Pannonicum (see p. 175-6) when, building on the achievements of M.
Vinicius and M. Agrippa in 14-13 B.c., he overcame the Breuci of the
Sava valley with help from the Scordisci in 12 B.c. Four more seasons of
warfare, under Tiberius in 11-9 B.c. and Sextus Appuleius in 8 B.c.,
completed the conquest south of the Drava and advanced the boundary
of Illyricum to the Danube. The defeated Pannonians were disarmed and
the young men of military age deported to the slave markets of Italy. A
triumph was voted to the general but only the honour was permitted.
Thus, according to a contemporary, was ended a ‘rebellion of the

7 Qn the identities and relationships of the rulers of Thrace, see Sullivan 1979 (£ 698). The
numbering of rulers follows that in the entries of U. Kahrstedt in RE, 1a, 255-7, 1003-4.

8 Dio Lrv.20.3. The reading of an inscription recording construction of a bridge over the
Strymon at Amphipolis, AE 1936, 18=ILGR 230, is not sufficiently clear to determine whether
Tarius Rufus was proconsul or legate.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

552 134. DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

Dalmatians’ that had lasted for more than 220 years, reckoning, that is,
from Rome’s first Illyrian war in 229 B.c.9

The conquest of Pannonia, along with the takeover of Noricum which
evidently followed the operations of Silius (see above), brought control
of the Drava and Sava valleys that enabled the Romans to dictate the
fortunes of most peoples in the middle Danube basin. How that power
was exploited is not reported, since the historical record for the middle
years of Augustus is seriously deficient, though the Dacians come again
into prominence. Late in 10 B.c. a raid across the frozen Danube had
frustrated an intention to close the temple of Janus, and the Roman
response may have been the operations of Cornelius Lentulus, perhaps
successor to Piso in the Balkan command, against Dacians, the same
group who surrendered to Crassus in 29 B.c., and their Sarmatian
mercenaries. Lentulus’ successor may have been the unknown general
(though likely to have been M. Vinicius) whose activities beyond the
lower Danube involved the Bastarnae and contacts, not necessarily
hostile, with lesser peoples to the west of Dacia.!° The scale and direction
of these operations suggest considerable confidence on the part of the
Romans towards their new Danubian conquests, which is also reflected
in the appointment ¢. 1 B.c. of the princeps’ eldest grandson to command
‘the legions on the Ister’, where ‘he fought no war, not because no war
broke out, but because he was learning to rule in peace and security’.!!
Though the Dacians were to prove troublesome again in a.p. 6,
Augustus felt entitled to claim a major victory over them, first by the
defeat of an invasion with heavy casualties, then by a counter-offensive
which brought a surrender. According to Strabo, the Dacians were on
the point of submitting but still held out in the hope of help from the
Germans.!? In this quarter Domitius Ahenobarbus, in the course of a
march from the Danube to the Elbe in this period, settled the friendly
Hermunduri on the west of the formidable Marcomanni, who them-
selves had recently migrated to Bohemia, where they appeared to
threaten the Roman hold on the upper Danube.!3

What is reported of the activities of Roman commanders in the
Balkans implies a control of the lower Danube that may, from time to

9 Dio Ltv.20.3. Most have assumed the province of Silius to have been Ilyricum, though nothing
connects him with that region while a dedication honouring him as proconsul was erected at
Aenona in Liburnia, ILS 899. The end of the Dalmatian ‘rebellion’ is noted by Vell. Pat. 1.90.1.

10 Most have accepted the identification of the [. . . ..] CIVS onthe Tusculum elogium, ILS 8965,
with the consul of 19 p.c. Most have also taken the general’s province to have been Illyricum, ¢.g
Syme 1971 (£ 702) 26-39, though the surviving text does not record that and the peoples involved
point to a command on the lower Danube. Dio Lv.10.17 (under 1 B.c.).

12, RG 30.2, with Suet. Aug. 21 and Strab. vir.3.11, 13 (303—4C).

13, Dio Lv.10a.2—3 (under A.D. 1).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

REBELLION 553

time, may have been extended through use of the fleet to the Black Sea.
At Callatis, a Greek city of that region which had been a Roman ally for
more than half a century, the praetorian legate P. Vinicius, under whom
‘the historian Velleius Paterculus served as tribune, is named on an
honorific inscription.14 Both the Romans and their allies will have been
aware of the movements of new peoples, caused by turmoil in remote
Asia, westwards across the Pontic steppes and into the plains beyond the
lower Danube. There had already been conflict with Sarmatians, steadily
roaming westwards, on at least two occasions. Some peoples pressed up
hard against Roman territory were evidently begging admission, to
which a response could be postponed, though not indefinitely. Late
under Augustus Strabo records that Sex. Aelius Catus allowed 50,000
Getae to cross the river and settle in Roman territory.!5

In the mean time the later years of Augustus’ Principate were marred
by misfortunes, none worse than the rebellion of the Pannonians.

II. REBELLION IN ILLYRICUM AND THE
ANNEXATION OF THRACE (A.D. 6-69)

When the warriors of the Daesitiates and other Pannonians had
assembled in a.p. 6 for the expedition against Maroboduus they were
minded instead to turn their arms against the Romans (p. 176-8). Led by
Bato of the Daesitiates and Bato of the Breuci they attacked Roman
settlements, the colonies on the Adriatic and even penetrated to
Macedonia. Sirmium near the mouth of the Sava, the key to the middle
Danube, was saved by the Balkan army and the Thracian cavalry under
Rhoemetalces, while in the west the army of Illyricum held fast at Siscia.
There in the following year the two armies were briefly united and were
directed in concert by Tiberius until the Pannonians surrendered at the
river Bathinus (Bosna?) on 3 August a.p. 8. In the next season the
Pannonians between the Sava and the Adriatic, including the Daesitiates
and Pirustae, were attacked until the surrender of Bato at Andetrium
(Muc), near Salona in the territory of the Delmatae, brought the terrible
war finally to an end. Tiberius, back in Rome at the beginning of A.D. 10,
was soon called to the Rhine by the disaster of Varus and the Illyrian
triumph was postponed until 23 October a.p. 12. The celebration of
victory, marked by salutations as émperator, triumphal honours for the
army commanders, and the erection of triumphal arches in Ilyricum,
cannot have concealed the real cost of ‘the most serious of all foreign
wars since the Punic’, when ‘ever so many legions were maintained but

' The Callatis treaty, JLLRP 516, is generally assigned to 72/1 B.c. For Vinicius at Callatis see
AE 1960, 378 with Syme 1971 (£ 702) 68-9, and 1979 (A 94) I 533. 'S Strab. vi1.3.10 (303C).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

554 134. DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

very little booty taken’.'* Less than two years after his triumph Tiberius
was again in Illyricum, though he had barely arrived when news of
Augustus’ final illness drew him back to Italy.

For long after the Pannonian revolt the provinces of Pannonia and
Dalmatia, formed by a division of Illyricum probably in a.v. 9, were
placed in the charge of senior consulars. The fighting had caused the
loyalty of the legions to be strained until, on hearing news of the death of
Augustus (19 August a.D. 14), the army of Pannonia mutinied. The
legions demanded better and more speedy reward for what they had
endured in the recent wars. Even the appearance on the scene of Drusus,
the son of Tiberius, did not bring an end to the disorder until a lunar
eclipse in the early hours of 27 September, followed by a break in the
weather, undermined the morale of the rebels and impaired their
mobility. Drusus on his return to Rome was praised for his resolute
conduct, though, observes Tacitus, the concessions made by Germani-
cus to the mutineers on the Rhine were extended to the army of
Pannonia.?”

Three years later the attention of Romans in Illyricum, in which the
direction of affairs had been assigned to Drusus, was diverted to turmoil
among the Suebic Germans, where the long supremacy of Maroboduus
among the Marcomanni was coming to an end. Challenged first by the
great Arminius in A.D. 17 he was expelled the following year by his
kinsman Catualda and accepted an exile at Ravenna where he lived on for
eighteen years. The followers of Maroboduus and also of Catualda, who
was himself speedily removed by the Hermunduri and consigned by the
Romans to an exile at Forum Iulii in Gaul, were settled beyond the
Danube between the rivers Marus (March) and Cusus (perhaps the Vah)
in southern Slovakia. Here they became subjects of Vannius, whose
thirty-year reign over the Suebic Quadi gave the Romans a generation of
peace in this quarter. It may have been around this time that the Romans
permitted the Sarmatian Jazyges to occupy the plains between Pannonia
and Dacia, though their presence is not recorded until a.p. 50, in the
service of Vannius (see below). On 28 May A.p. 20 Drusus celebrated the
award of an ovation granted in the previous summer for the reception of
Maroboduus and other achievements. Only a renewal of strife among
the Thracians now disturbed the pax romana in the Danube lands.'8

16 Suet. Tib. 16; Dio Lv1.16.4. The victory of Tiberius is the likely subject of the ‘Gemma
Augustea’ now in Vienna, Bianchi Bandinelli 1970 (F 275) 195. Among the defeated peoples
represented in the recently excavated Sebasteion at Aphrodisias were the Pannonian Andizetes and
Pirustae. Other Danubians include the Bessi, Dacians, Dardanians and Iapodes; see Smith 1987 (F
580) 96. 17 Tac. Aan. 1.16-30.

18 Tac. Ann. 11.44-6; 53; 62-3; 111.2; 19; 56. The presence of Drusus is commemorated in the
dedication of an exercise ground on the Dalmatian island Issa (Vis) in a.p. 20, [LIug 257. Mocsy

1977 (E 678) 439, cites the victory over Sarmatians credited to Tiberius in a.p. 7 by the Eusebius-
Hieronymus Chronicle (p. 170 Helm) as a possible context for the settlement of the Jazyges.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

REBELLION 555

The role of Roman forces in the region of the Danube delta, beyond
the presumed formal limits of Roman territory, is described in the Tristia
and the Letters from Pontus from Ovid’s nine-year exile (A.D. 9-17) at
Tomis. Life was hard and the barbarians were always close at hand. A
poem of a.p. 16 thanks the emperor’s legate Flaccus for gaining the
loyalty of the Moesians and keeping out the Getae. In a.p. 12 the latter
had seized the fortress at Aegis(s)us (Tulcea) and raided as far as Tomis.
A Thracian column came to the scene, and a Roman expedition came
down river to recover the fortress. The conduct of the chief centurion
(lulius) Vestalis, an Alpine prince and perhaps a descendant of King
Donnus, is singled out for praise. Another poem describes a similar
episode involving the fortress at Troesmis (Iglita), recaptured by the
legate Flaccus after a fight.!° Further south in Thrace a division of the
kingdom following the death of Rhoemetalces (I) around a.p. 12
brought a renewal of strife. After the death of Augustus, Cotys (VIII),
the son of the late king who had been awarded the more favoured east,
was threatened by his uncle Rhescuporis (III) in control of the rougher
and more backward west. In a.p. 18 Tiberius sent a warning but when
Cotys was seized and killed his uncle was brought to Rome and accused
before the Senate by Antonia Tryphaena, widow of Cotys and a
descendant of Mithridates and Antony. Rhescuporis was exiled to
Alexandria, where he was later killed ‘in an attempt to escape, genuine or
not’. The kingdom was assigned to his son Rhoemetalces (II) and the
children of the murdered Cotys, for whom the ex-praetor Trebellenus
Rufus acted as regent. In connexion with the same affair it is reported
that a leading Roman from Macedonia was charged with a treasonable
association with Rhescuporis and that his island banishment was
stipulated as having to be ‘inaccessible from Macedonia or Thrace’. The
Romans intervened again in a.p. 21, when Rhoemetalces was besieged in
Philippopolis, and then in a.p. 26 to put down a rebellion in the Haemus
mountains provoked by conscription to the Roman army. For his
services in this campaign, which earned triumphal honours for the
Roman commander, the king may have been rewarded with Roman
citizenship and the title rex. His reign was evidently over when Caligula
confirmed Rhoemetalces (III), son of Cotys (VIII) and Antonia Try-
phaena, in the realm of his father. His close association and distant
kinship with the emperor was advertised on dedications at Cyzicus,
across the Hellespont from Thrace, where the family had resided since
the death of Cotys in a.p. 19.7

In A.D. 44 the unified Balkan command of Moesia, Macedonia and

19 Ov. Pont. 1.8, 1v.7. On Vestalis see PIR? J 621.

2 Tac. Ann. 11.64—7 (fall of Rhescuporis), 111.38—9 (A.D. 21), 1v.47—-51 (A.D. 26). IGRR 4, 145-6
and 147 (Cyzicus), on which see Sullivan 1979 (E 698) 200-4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

556 134. DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

Achaea, formed at the beginning of Tiberius’ reign, was broken up. The
latter two were returned to the charge of proconsuls appointed by the
Senate, while Moesia was formally constituted a province under a
consular legate.2! The new arrangement was evidently bound up with
the annexation of Thrace following the murder of Rhoemetalces (III).
The takeover, which met with a degree of resistance requiring the
presence of the legions, was directed by A. Didius Gallus, first governor
of Moesia. His activities also embraced the Crimea, where the kingdom
of the Bosporus had long-standing connexions with Thrace. In his first
year Claudius had revoked Caligula’s award of the Bosporus to Polemo
of Pontus, son of Antonia Tryphaena, and confirmed the authority of
Mithridates, stepson of Gepaepyris the widow of King Aspurgus (died
¢. A.D. 37/8). The new king’s over-assertive policies brought his replace-
ment by his half-brother Cotys whose coins commence in A.D. 46/5 (342
of the local era), when he was installed by an expedition under Didius
Gallus. The attempt by Mithridates to recover his kingdom was defeated
by a-Roman prefect in charge of some auxiliary cohorts stationed in the
Bosporus, aided by the Sarmatian Aorsi, who roamed the plains between
the Tanais (Don) and the Caspian. The deposed king was consigned to
an exile in Italy until executed by Galba on suspicion of plotting.
Though the army of Moesia took part, it seems that the Roman interest
in this quarter was directed from Pontus in Asia Minor rather than from
the lower Danube.”

The affairs of Pannonia and Dalmatia after a.p. 9 present a notable
contrast to those of Moesia and Thrace. The hold on the Danube was
now secure and there is no record of trouble among the Pannonians.
During the Principate of Tiberius their governors were senior consulars,
retained in office for exceptional terms. The tenure of the Balkan
command by C. Poppaeus Sabinus was ended only by his death after
twenty-three years, and his successor Memmius Regulus remained for a
decade. L. Munatius Plancus held Pannonia for seventeen years, while
Dalmatia knew only two governors, P. Cornelius Dolabella until a.p. 20
and L. Volusius Saturninus. The extent of Roman confidence towards
the area is indicated by the transfer of a legion from Pannonia to Africa
for the campaign against Tacfarinas in A.D. 20-4, and by the permanent
removal, without replacement, of the same legion IX Hispana for the
expedition to Britain in a.p. 43. An attempted rebellion by the governor
of Dalmatia in a.p. 42 ended after five days when the legions returned to
their allegiance anda grateful Claudius rewarded them (VII and XJ) with

21 Suet. Claud. 25; Dio Lx.24.

2 Tac. Ann. xu.15—21; cf. Gajdukevié 1971 (E 664) 338. The war was named Bellum Mithridati-
cam, ILS 9197 (Tarracina).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

REBELLION $57

the titles ‘loyal and faithful’ (Claudia pia fidelis).> Otherwise the only
event of note in the area was the fall of Vannius, whose long reign among
the Suebi beyond the Danube (see above) came to an end with civil war.
In A.D. 50 the Romans refused aid to the dissidents but offered Vannius a
refuge, while the Roman governor was ordered to secure the Danube
bank with legions and auxiliaries ‘to provide help for the defeated and to
overawe the victors’. After the royal cavalry of the Sarmatian Jazyges
had provoked a disastrous fight with the Lugii, the king was rescued by a
Roman fleet, and his followers were settled in Pannonia. The kingdom
was divided between his nephews Sido and Italicus — ‘once popular
when winning power they were even more strongly detested after they
had gained it’.24 The Romans paid close attention to dynastic struggles
among their German neighbours for they realized that once matters had
been resolved there was a prospect of peace and stability fora generation.

The middle and later years of Nero saw a storm gathering on the lower
Danube. An unusually full record of the activities of a governor of
Moesia from around this time tells how ‘he brought across, with the
object of keeping up the payment of tribute, more than 100,000 of
Transdanubian peoples, along with wives and families, chiefs or kings’.
‘He nipped in the bud a growing threat from among the Sarmatians,
even though he had sent the greater part of his army for the expedition
into Armenia.’ ‘Kings hitherto unknown or hostile to the Roman people
he brought to the river bank to pay solemn respect to the Roman
standards. To the kings of the Bastarnae and Roxolani he restored their
sons and to the king of the Dacians his brothers, whom he had either
captured or rescued from enemies; from other rulers he received
hostages. By these measures he strengthened and extended the security
of the province.’ He was busy also in the Crimea: ‘he pushed back the
kings of the Scythians from a blockade of Chersonesus (near Sevasto-
pol), which lies beyond the river Borysthenes (Dniepr). Finally, ‘he was
the first to obtain from the province a large quantity of wheat for the
grain supply of the Roman people’. For these achievements Ti. Plautius
Silvanus Aelianus was not awarded triumphal honours until years later
under Vespasian, though it came then with marks of special favour.
Moreover, by that time disasters suffered by the Romans on the lower
Danube will likely have served to cast a more favourable light on what
appear to have been largely diplomatic comings and goings.?5

The reported schemes of Nero’s later years in the direction of the

3 By L. Arruntius Camillus Scribonianus, Suet. Claud. 13.2; Dio Lx.15.1—-2. For the legionary
titles see Wilkes 1969 (E 706) 96. * Tac. Ann. x11.29-30.

2% ILS 986 (Tibur). On these events see Pippidi 1962 (£ 685) 106-132, revised and reprinted in
Pippidi 1967 (& 686) 287-348.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

558 134. DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

Black Sea, involving annexation of Bosporus and Pontus and the raising
of a new legion for an expedition to the Caucasus, may have been in parta
response to an increasing threat from the Sarmatians and other Iranians.
Rebellion within the empire brought them to an end and when the
Sarmatians attacked the Roman world was on the point of being
engulfed by civil war. In the winter a.D. 67/8 the Roxolani had cut to
pieces two auxiliary cohorts and in the following winter they crossed the
river for a raid on Moesia. A sudden thaw put the Sarmatian horsemen at
a disadvantage when attacked by a legion and its auxiliaries, and a victory
had been reported to Rome by 1 March a.D. 69, for which the emperor
Otho made generous awards to all concerned.” A second attack later
that year found the province almost devoid of troops, and even the
legionary bases were in danger until the timely appearance of Mucianus
and the eastern legions on their march to Italy. Legion VI Ferrata was
diverted to deal with the invaders, who were Sarmatians rather than
Dacians, since it was for victory over the former that triumphal honours
were later awarded to Mucianus.2’ During the following winter, with
Moesia evidently still disorganized after the civil war, the Sarmatians
came again, killed the governor and ransacked the province from end to
end. A new governor could do no more than chase off a few stragglers.28
Now there began a comprehensive reorganization of the defences of
Moesia which marks the beginning of a new era in the history of the
Roman Danube.

III. THE DANUBE PEOPLES

Within little more than a generation a large tract of the Danube lands,
extending across the north of the Balkan peninsula, had been added to
the Roman empire. Control of the river Danube, achieved first through
the conquest of the Pannonians and extended through the annexation of
Thrace, gave to Rome the means of encircling and securing the
mountain ranges, some rising to over 2,;00m, and the dense forests that
covered most of the Balkans. In the east the lower basin of the Danube is
defined by a semicircular chain of mountains formed by the southern
Carpathians and the Stara Planina, through which the river forces its way
out of the Hungarian plain, once a great inland sea. In the west the
undulating plain of Pannonia, to the west of the Danube, is bounded on
the south by the rivers Drava and Sava. Further south the Dinaric
watershed and several ranges run mainly from north west to south east,
parallel with the Adriatic coast, and continue south through Montene-

% Tac. Hist. 1.79. The victory was acknowledged on that day with sacrifice on the Capitol by the
Arval Brethren, MW p. 13. 27 Tac. Hist. 11.46 cf. tv.4.
% Tac. Hist. 111.46.3; Joseph. BJ vi.4.3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE DANUBE PEOPLES 559

gto and Albania and the Pindus range of Greece. The south east is
dominated by the mass of the Rhodope mountains that extend across the
central Balkans, throwing out spurs towards the Black Sea and the
Aegean. Most of this area and its peoples could only be approached and
controlled from the direction of the Danube via its major tributaries.

Europe’s greatest river flows more than 2,800km from the Black
Forest to the Black Sea. Since Roman times the Danube has rarely served
as a political frontier, save for that between Bulgaria and Romania in
modern times. That has rather been the role of several major tributaries,
while the great-river has been more the highway for movement across
Europe. In the upper and lower basins, bounded by Alps, Carpathians
and the Balkan mountains, the south bank tends to be higher, sometimes
with cliffs where ranges of low hills meet the river. The north bank is
generally lower, marshy and hard to approach, save when ice covers
both marshes and river between January and March. Below Belgrade
passage between the upper and lower basins is obstructed by a succession
of gorges for nearly 130km, formed by the southward continuation of
the Carpathians. Fast currents, rocks and whirlpools combine to form
such a barrier that in antiquity the upper and lower courses of the
Danube were treated virtually as separate rivers. The lower gorge
(Donja Klisura), where the river narrows to 150m in the Kazan defile, is
more difficult than the upper (Gornja Klisura). A distance of 5km
downstream from the gorge comes the great barrier of the Iron Gate
(Prigrada), where a wall of rock across the bed of the river blocks any
form of passage. Here a stretch of 5km, where the river boils through
shoals and cataracts, was eventually bypassed with a canal in the year of
Trajan’s first invasion of Dacia,29 a precedent imitated by Austro-
Hungarian engineers at the end of the last century. The decision to hold
to the river after A.D. 9 was to make permanent an occupation of the great
plains along the upper and middle Danube. Later, when the river had
become a fortified line of defence, it was in the lowlands of Pannonia and
Moesia that the empire was vulnerable to sudden invasion, especially
when the river was bridged with ice.

The indigenous peoples of the Danube lands at the time of the Roman
conquest fall into four groups, whose languages all belonged to the
Indo-European family.> These were Celts in the north west, Illyrians in
the west, and Dacians and Thracians in the east, respectively north and
south of the Danube. The brief comments regarding their social
organization and material culture to be found in the ancient sources can
be supplemented by epigraphic and archaeological discoveries. Inscrip-
tions of the Roman period have been the basis for the study of personal
names, family structures and other groupings. The Thracians were

29 Sasel 1973 (E 692). % Polomé 1982 (g 687).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

NIVIE

g00c ‘sserg AuszaatuQ espuquieg EG sUTTUO savoisty esprquiey

‘ssoutaoid urrqnuec] ays yo sajdoad aaneu pus Aydesdoar “zi dey

ayend
Wiy 430

9 tSealArva
: att tt)

1918

\uviva "&

~~
wen
"

4 ovvuv
osu yoX® siiviayuy
ait! iiy2y 3 q

Ze 1 1 0
QI)

562 134. DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

believed to be the oldest stratum of the population and once appear to
have extended west as far as the Adriatic, though in historical times they
were bounded by the lower Danube, the Black Sea and Aegean coasts
and, on the west, by the river Strymon. In the west of their territory
dwelt the Dentheletae and Maidi in the Strymon valley, also the
formidable Bessi of the western plain and the Rhodope mountains. In the
more fertile and settled east were the Asti and Odrysae, from whom
originated the ruling dynasties of Thrace. North of the Haemus
mountains (Stara Planina) dwelt the associated Moesi and Triballi in the
west and, east of the river Utus, the Getae of the Dobrudja, who were
akin to the Dacians. Thracians dwelt in fortified villages and hill forts. In
earlier times they had imported fine metalwork and pottery which was
consigned in large amounts to their burials in mounds (tamu/1), of which
more than 15,000 have been recorded. The rule of Macedon in the fourth
century B.C. introduced urban life to the Thracians but signalled a
general decline in material fortunes, hastened later as hellenistic kings
competed to exploit their lands.3!

On the west of the Thracians, and bounded in the central Balkans
more or less by the valley of the Morova, lay the Illyrians. That name had
once been applied simply to the immediate neighbours of Epirus and
Macedonia but was later extended to include Delmatae, Liburnians,
Iapodes, Pannonians and others. Epitaphs of the Roman period found in
Albania, Yugoslavia and Hungary, have permitted the identification of
distinct groups among the IIlyrians, notably the Illyrians ‘properly so-
called’, as the Elder Pliny described them, dwelling in northern Albania,
the Delmatae and associated peoples of the middle Adriatic, the
Pannonians of Bosnia and the Sava and Drava valleys, the Iapodes, and
the Liburnians around the northern Adriatic.*2

“The Dacians and the Getae speak the same language’ notes Strabo.
Some ancient writers clearly confused the two peoples, until the Dacian
regime of Burebista rose in the first century B.c. to dominate the Danube
lands. In the west the once powerful Celtic Boii and Taurisci were
humbled and on the east the Black Sea cities from Olbia to Apollonia
came under Dacian influence. The dictator Caesar is said to have planned
an expedition to Dacia though the death of Burebista, which occurred
around the same time as Caesar’s, saw his kingdom soon broken up
between four or five rulers. In material culture the Dacians moved ahead
of the other Danubian peoples, as Celtic influences stimulated a natural
talent for metalworking in a land exceptionally rich in minerals. Long
familiar with imported goods from the hellenistic and Roman worlds,

31 Hoddinott 1981 (E 670).
32 Alfoldy 1964 (E 647); Garaganin 1982 (E 665) 386-7 and 598-610.
33 Strab. vi1.3.13 (305C).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE DANUBE PEOPLES . 563

jewellery, pottery, wine and oil, their commerce with the latter may
also have involved slave-trading on a large scale, for which large
quantities of Roman coins reached the area around the middle of the first
century B.c.34

Celtic peoples had moved into the middle Danube basin during the
fourth century B.c. They were soon in conflict with Illyrians and early in
the third century they reached the southern Balkans, on one famous
occasion (279 B.c.) all but destroying the kingdom of Macedon. Later
they dispersed, some bands moving to Asia, others returning north to
settlements near the Danube.*5 Survivals of the Celtic migrations
included the Scordisci around the lower Sava, who were prominent in
the middle Balkans during the late second and early first centuries B.c.
Settlements of Celts are suggested by place names apparently of Celtic
origin on the lower Danube, such as Ratiaria, Durostorum and Novio-
dunum. Celts remained dominant along the middle Danube, in Noricum
and in Pannonia, where remnants of the Boii and the Eravisci are found
separated by the Illyrian Azali, the latter perhaps transported there
during the Be//um Pannonicum of 14-9 B.c. Generally Celtic influence was
widespread in the western Balkans, notably in weapons and other
metalwork. The nature of their influence is indicated by Strabo’s
comment on the Iapodes: ‘their armour is Celtic, they are tattooed like
the rest of the Ilyrians and Thracians’.%6

Not a great deal is known of the economy, social organization and
material culture of the majority of the Danube peoples, although it is
now possible, in some measure, to put forward the necessary corrective
to unflattering stereotypes in the ancient sources, ‘ignorance’ of agricul-
ture and viticulture, ‘intemperance’ in drinking and sexual behaviour
and ‘uncivilized conduct’ among themselves and towards foreigners. In
several areas more is now known of the layout and general character of
settlements. In the south, among the Illyrians, Greek influence is evident
in the fortified settlements of the Illyrian kingdom, at Lissus, Scodra and
elsewhere.?’ The centre of the Illyrian Daorsi at OSanici near Stolac
possessed walls and towers reminiscent of Greek work.38 Along the
Adriatic coast from Istria southwards are found the remains of many
fortified hill-settlements, the so-called castellieri of Istria and gradina of
Dalmatia. Among the Delmatae the settlement of the Riditae at Danilo
near Sibenik is noteworthy for the many Latin inscriptions containing
native names, many apparently from the period before a municipium was
instituted under the Flavians.39 Many settlements of this type lasted well

™ Crisan 1978 ( 656); Crawford 1985 (B 320) 227-35. 35 Papazoglu 1978 (e 681) 272-8.
% Strab. vit.5.4 (314-15); Dion. Hal. /r. 16, calls them a Celtic people.

37 Wirta WH: La Ville Ulyrienne (Tirana, 1972) 239-68 (Lissus). 38 Mari¢ 1977 (E 673).

% AlfOldy 1968 (E 650) 1213-14. ,

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

564 134. DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

into the Roman period, dominated by native families whose members
often describe themselves as princeps castelli, ‘chief of the fortress’.

Among the Iapodes, some of the hill-settlements in the northern Lika
attacked by the Romans in 35 B.c. have been identified, notably
Monetium, Avendo and Arupium, and excavated; further east, in the
Una valley around Biha¢, some large cemeteries, most of cremations,
have been explored. Their grave goods include traditional types of
pottery, weapons, brooches and jewellery dating from early Iron Age to
Roman times. Unique to the area are the dozen or so stone cremation
chests, suggesting some Etruscan or Italic influence, with an incised
decoration of warriors, horsemen, funeral processions and dances, in a
style that shows little classical influence, although some are clearly of
Roman date since they bear also Latin epitaphs.*! The influence of
seaborne contacts with other peoples is evident in the material culture of
the Liburnians, notably in the extensive cemeteries excavated around
Zadar and Nin. The Liburnian settlement at Radovine had stone houses
built to a regular plan, imported Greek and hellenistic pottery and dry-
stone, later mortared defences, and remained inhabited throughout the
Roman era.42 Several of the larger Liburnian hill-settlements were
transformed into Roman towns when city institutions were introduced
in the Julio-Claudian period.

The warrior-led Celts in the Danube lands are identified with the
spread of fortified settlements (oppida) and by cemeteries which contain
metal weapons, helmets, armour and ornaments often of remarkable
quality. At Tolmin in Slovenia have been discovered the dressed stone
footings of pre-Roman houses.# At the summit of the Magdalensberg in
Carinthia was an oppidum, built c. 100 B.c., with a stone-faced double
rampart (murus duplex). The oppidum of the Eravisci in Pannonia was on
the Gellért hill overlooking the Danube at Budapest and continued to be
occupied well into Roman times, as the settlement spread down the
slopes towards the river. From here were circulated, possibly down to
Augustan times, the Eraviscan ‘denarii’ that imitated Roman republican
issues.*5 In Dacia recent excavations have revealed much of the history
and character of the citadels in the Oragtie mountains of south-west
Transylvania where the regimes of both Burebista and Decebalus were
centred. The earliest of these appears to have been Costesti, which
occupies a hill (561m) commanding the exit of the river Apa northwards
from the mountains. The earliest phases of other citadels, Blidarul,
Virful lui Hulpe, Piatra Rogie, Banita and Capilna, may also be dated

# For example, ILIug 1852-3. “1 Stiptevié 1977 (E 696) 207-14.

42 Batovié 1968 (E 633) 1973 (E 654). SvoljSak 1976 (£ 699).

“ Piccottini and Vetters 1981 (E 684) 10-17.

45, Mécsy 1974 (E 677) 56; this dating is judged to be too late by Crawford 1985 (B 320) 236. $9.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PROVINCES AND ARMIES 565

before the end of the first century B.c., if not to the period of Burebista.
At the centre lay the great complex of the Gradistea Muncel, consisting
of a large fortress and the major shrine, which has been identified as the
Dacian capital Sarmizegetusa. Most of what has been found there is
dated to the era of Decebalus, c. A.D. 80 to 105, but the place was already a
major shrine in the time of Burebista, where sanctuaries consisted of
rows of timber columns set on circular bases of andesite to represent
groves for the hanging of offerings to the gods.

IV. PROVINCES AND ARMIES

By early in the reign of Claudius the Danube landg had been organized
into five provinces. The core consisted of the three great commands of
Pannonia, Dalmatia and Moesia, each in the charge of a consular legate
and with armies totalling seven legions along with their equivalent
auxiliaries.47 In the north west and south east lay the smaller provinces of
Noricum and Thracia, once ruled by native dynasties but now in the
charge of procuratorial governors.

Noricum lay astride the Tauern Alps of Lower Austria, between the
upper Drava and the Danube, and was bounded on the west by the river
Inn.“®8 Though narrow gorges make travel difficult in several places,
some broad valleys are inviting for settlement, notably the Drau (Drava)
and the Zollfeld around Klagenfuhrt, the Mur around Graz and, north
of the watershed, the Traun around Wels. The main route into Noricum
from Italy crossed the Saifnitz saddle (812m) into Carinthia and
continued north to the Danube via Neumarkt, Ovilava (Wels) and
Lauriacum. A branch from the road heading for the Brenner Pass
entered Noricum from the west via the Eisacktal and the Pustertal, while
that from the south crossed the Karavanken by the Loibl (Lubelj) Pass.
Routes along the Mur and Drava valleys led to the main Pannonian
Highway at Poetovio (Ptuj) on the Drava. Though a seasonal route
crossed the High Tauern via the Hochtor (2,500m) the principal crossing
was via the Katschberg (In Alpe, 1,740m), Radstadt and Lueg Passes,
between Teurnia and Iuvavum (Salzburg). North of the mountains the

Daicoviciu 1972 (£ 658) 127-99.

47 The date of the division of Illyricum into Pannonia and Dalmatia remains a problem and has
most recently been considered by Fitz 1988 (£ 663) (suggesting A.D. 19/20). A belief that a division of
Ulyricum, either in 4.p. 8 or 9, produced two provinces known for a period as Illyricum Superius
(Dalmatia) and Inferius (Pannonia) is now to be abandoned since it rests on a doubtful MS record of
the full text of the now fragmentary CIL mt 1741 (Epidaurum) as a dedication to the early Tiberian
legate Cornelius Dolabella by the ‘civitates superioris provinciae Hillyrici’. See Novak 1966 (E 680).
The earliest record of Dalmatia is a monument, probably of Claudian date, erected at Rome, AE
1913, 194, but Illyricum, evidently denoting Pannonia still appears in official documents as late as
A.D. 60, CIL xvi 4.

4 Alfdldy 1974 (E 652) 7-13.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

566 134. DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

main west to east road led from Iuvavum, Ovilava, Lauriacum and
Cetium to Vindobona (Vienna) across the border in Pannonia.

The boundary between Noricum and Pannonia down the east side of
the Alps left in Pannonia territory that had once been reckoned part of
Noricum, including most of the Pannonian Highway (part of the
‘Amber Road’ of prehistoric times) between Aquileia and the Danube
via Emona, Celeia, Poetovio, Savaria and Carnuntum. The boundary
between Pannonia and Dalmatia along the south edge of the Sava valley
probably went back to a strategic division of command in IIlyricum
following the Pannonian surrender in the late summer of A.D. 8.49 The
long course of the Danube through the Hungarian plains marked the
northern and eastern limits of Pannonia, between Vindobona and
Singidunum (Belgrade) where Moesia began at the mouth of the Sava. In
terrain, climate and material culture there were differences between
Pannonia north and south of the Drava. The former was largely a
continuation of the Great Hungarian plain, with some more favoured
areas near Lake Balaton, inthe Bakony hills nearer the Danube bend and
around Pécs in the south east. In the south the overland routes between
Italy and the Balkans branched off the Pannonian Highway at Emona
and Poetovio to follow the broad and fertile valleys of the Sava and
Drava. Further north the two principal routes across northern Pannonia
led from Poetovio to Aquincum (Budapest) via Balaton, and from
Savaria along the Arabo (Raab) to Arrabona (Gy6r). There was at this
period no road along the Danube bank in Noricum or Pannonia.

The greater part of the southern boundary of Moesia followed the
northern foothills of the Haemus.5° Though a towpath was constructed
at least through the upper part of the Danube gorge by the Moesian
legions under Tiberius,5! there is no evidence at this time for a unified
route along the Danube between Ratiaria (Archar) and Aegyssus at the
apex of the delta. The most direct approach from the south to the centre
of the province, that is ‘Moesia et Triballia’ around Ratiaria and Oescus,
followed the Strymon (Struma) valley to Serdica and the Iskur valley to
Oescus. A longer and more difficult route followed the Axius (Vardar)
and Margus (Morava), via Scupi and Naissus, and then the Timacus
(Timok) to the Danube near Ratiaria.

Though an ‘unarmed province’ before the end of the first century A.D.
Dalmatia embraced a great tract of forests and mountains which had seen
hard fighting during the Augustan conquest.* In the south the waterless
and bare limestone karst of the hinterland makes a contrast with the coast
and islands, almost everywhere green with Mediterranean vegetation.

49 Mocsy 1974 (E 677) 33—4- A more southerly line for the Pannonian-Dalmatian boundary has
been suggested by DuSani¢ 1977 (E 661) 64-6. 5% Gerov 1979 (E 668).
51 IL Iug 57 and 60 (A.D. 33/4). 52 Wilkes 1969 (E 706) xxi-xxvii.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PROVINCES AND ARMIES $67

From the Julian Alps in the north to the valley of the Drin in the south
routes to the interior are uniformly difficult. Beyond the watershed of the
Dinaric ranges the Bosnian rivers flow north to the Sava, from east to
west the Glina, Colapis (Kulpa), Una, Sana, Vrbas, Bosna and Drina.
Hardly a single trace of Roman influence can be observed in this area
during the Julio-Claudian period, though Roman forces crossed and re-
crossed it as military roads were driven across the land.

Most of what may be termed provincial administration in the Danube
lands under the Julio-Claudians was intended to secure military ends, the
conquest, pacification and exploitation of native peoples, and the
security and support of the occupying armies. Until 27 B.c. Illyricum and
Macedonia (which also included Achaea) were administered by procon-
suls chosen from ex-praetors or ex-consuls. After that date Macedonia,
which included Epirus and Thessaly, and Achaea were constituted
separate provinces, each under a proconsul of praetorian rank, residing
normally at Thessalonica and Corinth respectively. Illyricum, also
proconsular, may not have extended north of the river Titus (Krka),
leaving Liburnia still grouped along with Istria and Transpadana. Even
when later part of Dalmatia, Liburnia retained its separate organization
for the imperial cult.%3

As for the arrangements in Thrace, Macedonia and Moesia, the view
here accepted is that after more than one Thracian crisis a new Balkan
command was constituted with the legions of Macedonia, perhaps by M.
Lollius in ¢. 19/18 B.c. (see above, p. 551), and perhaps titled ‘Thracia
Macedoniaque’. It may be presumed, though there is no proof, that
Macedonia was subsequently restored to administration by proconsuls,
though no longer with undefined military responsibilities. In a.D. 15
Macedonia and Achaea, having suffered many burdens during the recent
wars, were added to the emperor’s Balkan command, which by now may
have been known as ‘Moesia’ or ‘Moesia et Treballia’ to assist recovery
from the effects of those wars. This arrangement continued until A.D. 44
when Moesia was constituted a separate province and Macedonia and
Achaea were returned to their proconsuls.>4 Newly annexed Thrace was
placed in the charge of a procurator, a form of administration evidently
favoured by Claudius for former client kingdoms. The Roman governor
resided on the coast at Perinthus, rather than inland at the former capital
Bizye, but the royal system of administration by districts was retained.
The Thracian Chersonese (Gallipoli), an imperial possession since 12

33 CIL 11 2810 (Scardona): ‘sacer(dos) ad aram Lib[bum(iac)}’; cf. 11 2802 with 9877 (later lost
and republished, AE 1938, 68), a dedication to Nero, son of Germanicus (d. a.D. 31). The provincial
cult for Dalmatia was centred first at Epidaurum, CIL ut 1741, then later at Doclea, CIL m1 12695
cf. p. 2253.

* Vell. Pat. 11.101.3; Tae. Aan.1.80; Dio Lv.29.3; ILS 1349. It is to be noted that the sources for
the history of Moesia before Claudian times are incomplete and tend to be anachronistic.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

568 134. DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

B.C., retained its separate administration, while Byzantium was included
in the Asian province Bithynia. Not long after the annexation of Thrace
that city appealed successfully for a remission of taxes in recognition of
its contribution to the Roman war effort. A similar regime was
introduced for Noricum, with a procuratorial administration based at
the new city of Virunum in the Zollfeld.55

In several areas military conquest was, in typical Roman fashion,
followed up by driving new roads though areas of mountain and forest.
The Via Claudia Augusta across the eastern Alps via the Resia Pass was
completed under Claudius,* and roads across the Alps in Noricum may
have been built around the same time. In Dalmatia at least five major
roads, radiating in all directions across the province from Salona, had
been completed by a.p. 20.57 In Pannonia the road across the Julian Alps
from Aquileia to Emona was under construction in A.D. 14.58 In Moesia a
towpath through the upper gorge of the Danube was complete by a.p.
33/4, and was repaired under Claudius and doubtless on several other
occasions given the conditions on the river when the thaw comes and the
ice breaks.5? In Thrace the early procurators were occupied with
building police posts on the main roads across the Haemus to the
Moesian legions on the Danube. The organized construction of
defensive walls for Roman colonies also indicates the essentially military
character of these new foundations (see below).

Only among the enfranchised communities of southern Liburnia is
there evidence for administration of a more civilian character. Under the
governor Cornelius Dolabella a survey of the region was completed
(forma Dolabelliana), that defined boundaries and rights in such matters as
water supply. It seems that many disputes soon arose which required the
governor’s attention. The implementation of his judgment on the
ground was normally assigned to a senior centurion who would see to
the placing of boundary markers in the right places.®!

Since the victory over Mithridates of Pontus the Greek cities along the
Thracian coast of the Black Sea had come steadily under Roman
influence and one, Callatis, is known to have entered a formal alliance.
For centuries the cities of the Dobrudja had, under the leadership of
Histria, exploited the resources of the delta and had managed a profitable
commerce with the peoples of the interior. The five cities along the coast

58 AE 1957, 23, in which a procurator is honoured by 33 strategiae. Tac. Ann. x1.62—3 (appeal of
Byzantium in A.D. 53). % ILS 208.

57 CIL m1 3198—zo1, t01$6—9, and Wilkes 1969 (E 706) 45 2-5 (readings based on Alfoldy 1964 (E
648) 247). The road beyond Burnum tothe Sava valley was completed in a.p. 47, CIL 111 13 329ff. On
‘viae militares’ in the Danube lands see J. SaSel, Studien zu den Militargrenzen Roms II (K6ln, 1977)
235-44. 58 Tac. Aan. 1.20.

59 ILIug 56, $5 and 58. One of the two Tiberian texts is illustrated by Swoboda 1939 (E 701) pl. V.

© ILS 231 and p. CLXX (CIL 1m 6123 cf. p. 109 = 14207), AE 1912, 193, recording work in
A.D. 61 under the procurator T. lulius Ustus. 6! Wilkes 1969 (£ 706) 456-9 and 1974 (E 707).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PROVINCES AND ARMIES $69

south of the delta, Histria, Tomis, Callatis, Dionysopolis and Odessus,
formed together the Pentapolis of the ‘Left Pontus’. Down to the
Principate of Nero a common coinage had been produced for local
circulation, and the Pentapolis was incorporated into the province of
Moesia. An assembly for religious ceremony and matters of common
interest met at Tomis under a pontarch. This city had taken over from
Histria as the principal port of the region and since the time of Augustus
a flotilla had been stationed there under a ‘prefect of the sea-coast’.6?
They were the local agents of Roman authority and acted as intermediar-
ies between the cities and higher authority. For the exiled Ovid at Tomis
the freezing of the river between January and March brought the danger
of attack, but the poet also describes the peaceful transit in winter by the
lumbering carts of the Jazyges and other Sarmatians over the newly
bridged river. When Getae threatened, the cities of the Dobrudja looked
to Rome for protection although, as we have already seen, this tended to
arrive after the damage had been done. Ovid’s advertised feeling that his
safety depended on the Roman general and his legions was no doubt
heartfelt, and his private shrine to the imperial family was likely, in part
at least, a compensation for his feeling of insecurity. Further north in
Histria the erection or repair of a temple to Augustus in his own lifetime
testifies to the increasing ties between Rome and this region before it was
formally incorporated in the province of Moesia.®

Some indication of how these cities fared after the imposition of direct
rule under Claudius is furnished by a document, inscribed in at least two
copies, that defined the territories and economic privileges of Histria
early under Trajan, to which was appended a dossier of letters addressed
to the city from earlier governors. When Roman taxes were imposed
along the lower Danube the Thracian Bank (Ripa Thraciae) was orga-
nized as a separate district within the taxation province of Illyricum.
Evidently the zealous agents of this bureau had challenged the tra-
ditional privileges claimed by Histria in the delta, which included
gathering pinewood and fishing in the Peuce mouth. On appeal it seems
that the city’s claims were upheld on more than one occasion by the
governor, before whom they had been supported by the local Roman
prefects. Under Nero one governor made the comment that the principal
revenue of Histria was derived from pickled fish, suggesting that
another matter at issue may have been salt extraction, normally an
imperial monopoly, traditionally carried on at several places along the
coast.

On the matter of military deployment, that is apart from the presence
of armies on expeditions, little is known until the army reforms of

62 Danoff 1938 (£ 659) (Pentapolis), and Vulpe and Barnea 1968 (E 704) 66. The walls of Odessus

(Varna) were repaired under Tiberius, IGBulg 1? 57. 6 ISM no. 146.
* ISM1 nos. 67 and 68.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

570 134. DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

Augustus which resulted in the standing provincial armies of legions and
auxilia. Aquileia is likely to have been the base for the legions until they
were moved to camps in Pannonia, probably in or after the Be//um
Pannonicum of 14-9 B.C. The legions in Macedonia, at least four in
Crassus’ army of 29-28 B.c., may already have been stationed in
Dardania, perhaps at Scupiand Naissus, before the imperial command in
the Balkans was instituted. Then one legion may have been moved up to
the river, V Macedonica at Oescus. In the south of IIlyricum the
legionary bases known later at Burnum and Tilurium may have been
established following the extension of the new imperial Illyricum to the
Adriatic, perhaps in 11 B.c. After A.D. 9 the seven Danube legions were
deployed as follows: in Pannonia VIII Augusta (Poetovio), IX Hispana
(Siscia) and XV Apollinaris (?>Emona); in Dalmatia VII, formerly titled
Macedonica, (Tilurium) and XI (Burnum); in ‘Moesia et Triballia’ V
Macedonica (Oescus) and in Dardania IV Scythica (PNaissus).® So far
excavation has contributed little to our knowledge of legionary deploy-
ment in this period. Emona has not yielded any certain trace of the
supposed base of XV Apollinaris that preceded the foundation of the
colony in A.D. 14/15. Nor have Carnuntum or Burnum furnished
evidence for occupation before the end of Tiberius’ reign, though
epitaphs indicate the presence of XV Apollinaris at the former and of
XX at Burnum before it was replaced there in A.D. 9. In addition,
numerous epitaphs of serving soldiers, datable to the period before a.D.
42 because they lack the titles Claudia pia fidelis (see above), testify that
they were based at Burnum and Tilurium, though not necessarily in
camps on the site of later fortresses, under Tiberius and Gaius. On the
south bank of the Drava at Poetovio quantities of Augustan pottery
from the buildings of the canabae relate to the presence of VIII Augusta.
Among the large haul of Roman military equipment dredged from the
river at Siscia was a helmet that belonged to a soldier of IX Hispana. In
the Balkans the first dated record of IV Scythica and V Macedonia are the
inscriptions on the rock-face of the upper Danube gorge dated to a.p.
33/4 noted above. From the find of an early epitaph, it has been
suggested that Oescus was the base of the latter unit from the middle
years of Augustus. Where the other was based is quite uncertain: Ratiaria
on the Danube is a possibility but a more likely place is Naissus, the
strategic crossroads of Dardania. The fact that no material evidence for
an early occupation has been found at Naissus seems to count against
this, though recent evidence cited above from Illyricum makes that
inference less certain.

65 The evidence is summarized in Wilkes 1969 (E 706) 92-5, and Mécsy 1974 (E 677) 42—4.

& Emona: Sa8el 1968 (E 691) 562-3. Carmuntum: Kandler, in Stiglitz, Kandler and Jobst 1977 (E
693); cf. Zabehlicky-Sheffenegger and Kandler 1979 (E 710) 13. Tilurium: Wilkes,1969 (E 706) 97.

Poetovio: Klemenc and Saria 1936 (E 671) 56; cf. Curk 1976 (E 65 7) 64. Siscia: Sa8el 1974 (E693) 734-
Oescus: Gerov 1967 (E 667) 87-90. Naissus: P. Petrovic, IMS tv (1979) 30-1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PROVINCES AND ARMIES 571

Later alterations in legionary deployment were caused by events
elsewhere in the empire. Legion [X Hispana departed finally for Britain
in A.D. 43 and was not replaced at Siscia, leaving the garrison of Pannonia
with two legions. When VIII Augusta moved to the lower Danube in
A.D. 44/5 its place at Poetovio was taken by XIII Gemina, transferred
from the upper Rhine. With VIII Augusta possibly at Novae on the
Danube below Oescus the army of Moesia now comprised three legions.
Late under Claudius IV Scythica was moved to the East and its place
taken by VII Claudia, perhaps first stationed at Scupi, then later on
Viminacium on the Danube above the gorge, and the army of Dalmatia
was now reduced to a single legion. In a.p. 62 a crisis in Armenia saw
two legions withdrawn from the Danube, XV Apollinaris from Carnun-
tum, its place being taken by X Gemina from Spain, and V Macedonica,
which was not replaced at Oescus, leaving Moesia temporarily with two
legions until, late under Nero, III Gallica arrived for its brief sojourn on
the lower Danube.

Though perhaps yet to be fully organized with permanent bases,
Roman fleets on the Danube and its tributaries played a major role in
military operations and their logistics. The attack on Siscia (Segesta) in
35 B.C. (see p. 550) was effected with ships provided by the allies, but
Roman fleets participated in expeditions against the Dacians under
Augustus and also, slightly later, in the incidents on the lower Danube
described by Ovid. The west coast of the Black Sea was also patrolled by
a Roman flotilla stationed at Tomis. Under Claudius the Roman fleet
patrolling the Danube was on hand to rescue Vannius from his kingdom,
and the reported activities of Plautius Silvanus Aelianus on the lower
Danube under Nero (see above) would not have been possible without a
fleet in control of the river, not to mention the excursion to the Crimea.
The Pannonian and Moesian fleets, later based at Taurunum and
Noviodunum ~ in each case the last harbour proceeding downstream —
will have functioned quite separately as long as there was no through
passage at the Danube gorge and the Iron Gate. In the Black Sea the
Pontus fleet was based on the coast of Asia Minor, and for the Adriatic
Ravenna on the coast of Italy remained the principal naval base, with
stations elsewhere, including one at Salona.®7

Most of the auxiliary units in Dalmatia were placed in the territory of
the Delmatae. Several were in or close to coastal colonies, with two
cavalry alae, one of which was a regiment of Parthian refugees, and two
infantry cohorts at Salona, with cohorts also at Iader, Narona and
Epidaurum. The latter are also found at the legionary bases, two at
Burnum and one at Tilurium, with an a/a at the latter perhaps being a
part replacement under Claudius for the departed VII Claudia. The four
cohorts named on early epitaphs at the camp of Bigeste near Narona are

67 Starr 1960 (D 237) 23 and 125-41.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

572 134. DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

unlikely to have been in garrison there simultaneously. Other stations
along the road linking the legionary bases Burnum and Tilurium were
Promona (a cohort), Magnum (a/2) and Andetrium (cohort). In the case
of some units, for example a cohort of Syrian archers (cohors II
Cyrrhestarum), no base can be identified since serving members are found
in several places. In Pannonia a larger number of cavalry units was
deployed along the main roads leading to the Danube, notably on the
Pannonian Highway at Sala (Zalal6vo), Savaria, Scarbantia and Carnun-
tum. Roman pottery indicates a military base at Mursa on the Drava,
similar to that known to have existed at Sirmium. By Claudius, if not
earlier, some cavalry units had been placed near the Danube termini of
other roads in the north and east of Pannonia, at Arrabona, Brigetio,
Aquincum, Gorsium, Mursa and Teutoburgium (Dalj). Under Augus-
tus the military presence in Noricum included a detachment from the
Pannonian VIII Augusta at Magdalensberg and perhaps there was
another at Celeia (Celje) which, although within Noricum, lay on the
Pannonian Highway. Around the end of Augustus’ reign a locally
recruited auxiliary unit (cohors Montanorum prima) had replaced the
legionaries at Magdalensberg. By the time of Claudius the aaxilia in
Noricum, which in A.D. 69 comprised an a/a and eight cohorts, had been
moved up to the Danube bank, to bases at Lentia (Linz) and Lauriacum
in the west, and Augustiana (Traismauer) and Zwentendorf in the east.®8

In Moesia auxiliary units may have preceded the legions in their later
bases at Singidunum (Belgrade) and Viminacium. Signs of early occupa-
tion have been reported in the forts of the Danube gorge at Boljetin and
Donji Milanovac. On the lower Danube some early epitaphs, though no
precise dating is possible, indicate cavalry units at Augustae (Hurlec),
Securisca, Variana, Utus, Oescus and Nikopol. Infantry units were
stationed on main roads in the interior, at Timacum Minus (Ravna) in
the Timacus (Timok) valley, at Naissus and possibly already at Montana
(Mihailovgrad), the later station of the cohors Claudia Sugambrorum
veterana, a unit that was already serving in Thrace under Tiberius. Finally
the cavalry veteran buried at Tomis may have been serving in the newly
occupied Dobrudja under Claudius or Nero.® Julio-Claudian military
deployment in the Danube lands saw the legions mainly held in the rear
before Claudius, with cavalry regiments pushed out as far as the Danube
crossings and infantry cohorts patrolling the intervening roads. Under
Claudius and Nero a gradual move towards the river is discernible but
the date when several of the later known legionary bases were first
occupied, for example Carnuntum, Viminacium and Novae, remains

68 Dalmatia: Alféldy 1987 (D 159) 239-97. Pannonia, Mécsy 1974 (E 677) 48-51. Noricum:
Alféldy 1974 (E 652) 65.
69 J.J. Wilkes in Hartley and Wacher 1983 (c 274) 266-7.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

COLONIZATION 573

uncertain. Before the Flavian period there was no Roman frontier, at
least in any military sense, along the Danube.

V. ROMAN COLONIZATION AND THE ORGANIZATION
OF THE NATIVE PEOPLES

Long before the time of Caesar, Roman merchants and settlers had
reached Macedonia and Illyricum but the formal institution of Roman
colonies in both areas began only in the aftermath of civil war between
Caesar and Pompey. Colonies were established following the decisive
battles at Pharsalus in 48 B.c., Philippi in 42 8.c. and Actium in 31 B.c.
Subsequently, new colonies of Roman citizens were rarely instituted and
then only for legionary veterans from the same or adjacent provinces.”
Foundation dates of the early colonies remain uncertain, especially of
those in Achaea and Macedonia where the evidence often consists of a
few locally minted coins. Several colonies were evidently refounded
with an infusion of new settlers along with the conferring of new titles.
No overall strategic scheme is evident in the places chosen for new
settlements, though major harbours and overland routes were doubtless
a consideration. Caesar’s foundation at Corinth (Laus Iulia Corinthien-
sis) was more a commercial enterprise than a settled colony and later
dominated the rest of Achaea. Patrae (colonia Aroe Augusta), a veteran
settlement from legions X Fretensis and XII Fulminata and streng-
thened by deportations from southern Aetolia, was the main port for
traffic with Italy. In spite of more than one attempt at settlement, a
colony at nearby Dyme was later absorbed by Patrae. The new city of
Nicopolis on the Gulf of Ambracia, founded to commemorate the
victory at Actium, was not a colony but rather a concentration of several
existing settlements to form a new city. Further north, Caesar’s new
settlers may have contributed to the later prosperity of Buthrotum
(Butrint) on the coast opposite Corcyra and in the same area the
Augustan foundation at Byllis (Gradisht) overlooking the river Aous
also flourished.

The five colonies in Macedonia originated in reparations following
civil war.7! Cassandrea on the Pallene isthmus of Chalcidice and Dium on
the Thermaic Gulf were first settled on the orders of Brutus, Philippi
with veterans by Antony after the battle. After Actium Octavian
permitted Antonians dispossessed in Italy to settle at Dyrrhachium,
Philippi and other places. The titles Iulia Augusta suggest that these may
have included Cassandrea, Pella and Dium, in addition to Philippi.
Dyrrhachium, formerly the Corinthian colony Epidamnus, lay at the

% Vittinghoff 1952 (c 239) 85-7 and 124-9; Brunt 1971 (4 9) 597-9.
1 Papazoglu 1979 (E 682) 357-61.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

574 134. DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

western terminus of the Via Egnatia and, like Philippi, Dium and
Cassandrea, possessed a large territory. The exceptional privilege of
‘Italian status’ (as Italicum), carrying immunity from taxation, reported
for the colonies Dyrrhachium, Cassandrea, Philippi and Dium was
evidently a recompense to refugees from Italy and was extended also to
those settled in the later municipium at Stobi in Paeonia. Among other
communities, Thessalonica, residence of the proconsul, enjoyed the
status of ‘free city’ (civitas Libera) probably from 42 B.c., while the
‘freedom’ of Amphipolis may go back to the institution of the province.
Elsewhere, nothing is recorded of the ‘free people of Scotussa’ or of
privileges conferred on Amantia near the border of Epirus and Illyria.
Existing federations (oina) of the native peoples were retained to give an
impression of an autonomy that persisted for centuries.

Along the Adriatic coast of Illyricum the few Greek colonies, Issa,
Pharos, and Corcyra Nigra being the principal settlements, had been
threatened by the growth of Roman settlement. By the time Pliny wrote
of ‘several Greek cities and powerful communities of fading memory’
the early Roman settlements (conventus civium Romanorum) had grown into
flourishing cities enjoying the status of colonia.”2 The colonia Martia Iulia
at Salona, and the coloniae Iuliae at Narona and Epidaurum were likely
creations of Caesar to strengthen and reward Roman settlers of that area
for conspicuous loyalty in the civil war. In the pre-colonial period at
Narona there is a record of the civic organization of the conventus, a
college of two magistri and two quaestors, one of each being a
freedman.’3 The new colonies possessed large territories, that of Salona
including not only settlements on the mainland that had once belonged
to Issa but also the island Pharos (Hvar), which was administered as a
prefecture. Uncertainty persists over the status of several smaller Roman
settlements on the Dalmatian coast described by Pliny as ‘towns of
Roman citizens’ (‘oppida civium Romanorum’), Risinium (Risan),
Acruvium (Kotor), Butua (Budva), Olcinium (Ulcinj), Scodra
(Shkodér) and Lissus (Lezha). Risinium had the epithet Iulium and
Scodra is called co/onia on a later inscription but most likely they were
irregular settlements later constituted as municipia.

In Liburnia the colony at Iader boasted of Augustus as its creator
(parens coloniae) and the donor of its defences.” The occasion was
probably following Agrippa’s seizure of the Liburnian navy in 35 B.c.
The same event may be the occasion for the foundation of a colony at the
Liburnian port of Senia (Senj), and in Istria at Pola (colonia Iulia Pola
Pollentia Herculanea) and Parentium (Pore¢), while the slightly earlier
foundation at Tergeste (Trieste) received the benefit of walls following a

72 Pliny, HN 111.144. Wilkes 1969 (E 706) 192-261.
73 CIL m1 1820, Wilkes 1969 (E 706) pl. 28. 7% CIL 11 2907, Wilkes 1969 (£ 706) pl. 24.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

COLONIZATION $75

destructive raid by the Iapodes. The Italian status enjoyed by several
Liburnian communities may have been conferred in recompense follow-
ing their inclusion in the province of Illyricum in 11 B.C., following a
period when Liburnia had been administered along with north-east
Italy. Those with sus Italicum are Alvona (Alutae) and Flanona (Flanates)
on the west of Istria, Lopsica (Lopsi) south of Senia, and Varvaria
(Varvarini) near the border with the Delmatae of Illyricum. A similar
reason may explain the exemption from tribute (¢#munitas) of Curicum
(Curictae) and Fertinium (Fertinates) on the island Curictae (Krk) and
Asseria (Asseriates) in the south near Iader. The presence of enfran-
chized native Iulii suggest that several of these places were organized as
municipia under Augustus and it seems certain that most had acquired
that status by the end of the Julio-Claudian period: Alvona, Flanona,
Lopsica, Ortopla, Vegium and Argyruntum along the coast; in the gulf
of Flanona (Kvarner), Fertinium and Curicum on Curictae, Crexa and
Absortium on Apsorus (Osor), Arba (Rab) and Cissa (Pag). On the
mainland behind Iader lay Nedinum, Corinium, Asseria, Alveria and
Varvaria, and, less certain, Clambetae, Sidrona, Ansium and Pasinum
(the last two not located).75

The postponed discharges of veterans from the armies of Ilyricum
caused by the wars of Augustus’ later years are reflected in the high totals
of years of service (stipendia) among veterans settled near Burnum and at
Pagus Scunasticus in the territory of Narona.”6 In Dalmatia many
veterans moved to the coastal colonies nearby. The mutiny of a.p. 14 in
Pannonia was set off in part by the unappealing prospect of settling at the
newly organized colony of Emona, whose defences were being com-
pleted in a.p. 14/15.77 New colonies to accommodate Danubian veterans
were instituted under Claudius. Savaria lay on the Pannonian Highway a
few km south of a major settlement of the Celtic Boil, Aequum in
Dalmatia near the vacated legionary base at Tilurium, and Aprus or Apri
in Thrace near the Sea of Marmara. Legionary veterans were evidently
the dominant group in these places, from VIII Augusta and XV
Apollinaris in Savaria (though here civilians may have been among the
original settlers), VII and XI Claudia at Aequum and VIII Augusta at
Aprus. Well-placed smaller settlements also attracted veterans, evidently
with official encouragement. In Pannonia along the road north of
Savaria, the mixed veteran and civilian settlement Scarbantia boasted the
title Iulia though it was not formally instituted as a municipium until the
Flavian period.’8 The settlement of veterans by Claudius at a village in

15 Wilkes 1969 (E 706) 107-15. 76 Alfdldy 1987 (D 159) 298-312.

77 Sadel 1968 (E 691) 564-5.

78 Mocsy 1974 (E 677) 74 (Scarbantia), 76—9 (Savaria). Pliny, HN 1v.47-8; ILS 2718; cf. Velkov

1977 (EB 703) 122 (colonia Claudia Aprensis). Veterans were also settled at strategic places on the
main highways of Thrace, Gerov 1961 (E 666).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

576 134, DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

the territory of Salona may have preceded the foundation at Aequum and
have been a special provision for members of V Macedonica after service
on the bleak wastes of the lower Danube.”?

In Celtic Noricum five of that province’s eight municipia were
instituted under Claudius.2° The establishment of Virunum in the
Zollfeld brought an end to the commercial settlement on the Magdalens-
berg, though other factors, including the imposition of an imperial
monopoly on the Norican iron workings, may have contributed to the
demise of what seems to have been a centre of unbridled free enterprise.
Virunum remained the seat of the provincial administration for more
than a century and was the leading city in the province. Other municipia
were Teurnia and Aguntum in the upper valley of the Drau/Drava, the
former on a steep-sided hill above the river that ensured its survival in
later centuries. Celeia in the south east had been a Celtic oppidum on the
main highway between Emona and Poetovio. Iuvavum (Salzburg) lay
north of the Tauern, where the Salzach emerges from its gorge. Though
three new municipia were created in Noricum after the Julio-Claudian
era, Flavian Solva in the Mur valley and Hadrianic Cetium and Ovilava
near the Danube, the Claudian urbanization of Noricum marks the first
external assimilation to Roman ways of the bulk of the native peoples ina
Danubian province.

The third book of the Elder Pliny’s Natural History includes lists of
native communities (civitates peregrinae) of the Danube provinces which
in part appear to be based on official lists drawn up following the Roman
conquest. The lists of peoples in Ptolemy’s Geography, which although
compiled in the second century a.p. uses earlier information, differ at
several points. Both accounts nevertheless furnish a reasonably compre-
hensive account of the native peoples as organized, divided or amalga-
mated following the formal imposition of Roman rule.®!

In Illyricum an earlier scheme of administration had included a
judicial district (conventus) based on Narona that included as many as
eighty-six separate communities. Later the peoples of Dalmatia were
grouped into three such districts, based on Scardona, Salona and
Narona. The first was the smallest and contained the Iapodes and
fourteen civitates of the Liburnia, evidently some smaller inland groups
of whom Pliny deems only the Lacinienses, Stulpini, Burnistae (the
native inhabitants of Burnum), and Olbonenses worth naming. To the
lists of communities in the districts of Salona and Narona are added
numerical totals of decuriae as an indication of their strength, and which
may have been a unit of the Roman census roughly equivalent to existing
native groups. Some of the peoples named are known from earlier times

% Pliny, HN ut.141; CIL st 8753 (2028); cf. AE 1984, 228.
8 Alfdldy 1974 (E 652) 91-6. 81 Mocsy 1974 (E 677) 53-4; Wilkes 1969 (E 706) 482-6.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

COLONIZATION 577

and can be located with reasonable precision, while others were new
Roman groupings of several smaller communities, some of whom are
also named by Pliny.

The Delmatae, with 342 decuriae, belonged to the Salona conventus and
were the largest people in the province that was named after them. Their
territory extended along the Adriatic between the rivers Titus (Krka)
and Narenta (Neretva) and extended inland across the watershed to
include the high plains around Livno, Glamoé and Duvno. Deprived of
much of the coast through Roman settlements, they had, for ease of
communication, virtually the entire garrison of the province based
within their territory and even when a legion was transferred its place
was taken by a colony of veterans. There are indications that after A.D. 9
some of the Delmatae were transported to new settlements in the
interior. The Ditiones (239 decuriae) lay north west of the Delmatae and
occupied the forests and valleys of western Bosnia around the river
Unac. Their territory was the initial terminus of one of the military roads
constructed following the conquest, ‘to the foot of mons Ulcirus of the
Ditiones’ (see above). North of these were the Pannonian Maezaei (269)
in the Sana and Vrbas valleys, against whom Germanicus had led an
expedition in a.p. 7. The Sardeates (52), possibly to be connected with
the place Sarnade or Sarute on the main road between the Sava and the
Adriatic, perhaps dwelt around Jajce in the Pliva valley, while the Deuri
(25), the Derrioi of Ptolemy and perhaps the Derbanoi of Appian, dwelt
around Bugojno in the upper valley of the Vrbas.

The thirteen communities of the Narona conventus represent a major
reorganization of the earlier eighty-nine. They include the (V)ardaei,
‘once ravagers of Italy but now reduced to a mere 20 decuriae’, and the
D(a)uersi (17), or Daorsi, who also figure in the warfare of the second
century B.c. The Deraemestae (30) were a new formation from several
smaller peoples in the hinterland of Epidaurum, including the Ozuaei,
Partheni, Hemasini, Arthitae and Armistae. The peoples who had
formed the core of the old Illyrian kingdom of the third to second
centuries B.c., the Labeatae, Endirudini, Sasaei, Grabaei, the Illlyrii
‘properly so-called’, Taulantii and Pyraei (the former Pleraei) were
grouped to form the Docleatae based at Doclea, later a Flavian
municipium, at the confluence of the rivers Zeta and Morata. Many of
these communities were the inhabitants of a single settlement, for
example Enderon (near NikSic) of the Endirudini or Kinna (on the east
of Lake Scodra) of the Kinambroi, who figure in the list of those who
surrendered to Octavian in 33 B.c. The much diminished Daesitiates
(103), who had begun the uprising in a.D. 6, inhabited central Bosnia
around Sarajevo and the river Bosna. Their fortress (castellum) of
Hedum, perhaps in the east of their territory near Breza, was the

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

578 134. DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

terminus of another of the military roads driven across the province after
the conquest (see above). The Narensii (102) were evidently another new
formation of peoples and from their name were centred on the river
Naron or Narenta, perhaps the middle and upper course and including
the plain around Mostar. Since they are listed among those peoples who
submitted in 33 B.c. the Melcumani (24) are not likely to have lived any
great distance from the coast. It has been suggested that they may have
been inland of the Deraemestae, in the plains around Gatko and
Nevesinje in eastern Hercegovina.

East and south of the Daesitiates, among the mountains around the
upper Drina, Piva, Tara, and Lim valleys, dwelt the formidable Pirustae,
‘almost unconquerable on account of the position of their strongholds in
the mountains, their warlike temper and, above all, the narrow defiles in
which they lived’.82 Though named by Ptolemy they do not appear in the
list of Pliny and, for reasons of security, had evidently been broken up
into the hitherto unknown Siculotae (24) and Cerauni (24). The former
may have included Delmatae transferred from. the coast and perhaps
occupied the area of Pljevlja in what is now northern Montenegro.
Perhaps also once part of the Pirustae, though Ptolemy lists them
separately as the Skirtones, were the more numerous Scirtari (72) who
dwelt close to Macedonia, probably in northern Albania around the
middle Drin. Also part of the Pirustae may have been the Glintidiones.
As they are recorded also to have surrendered in 33 B.c. they were
evidently more accessible than the rest and could have occupied the
region of Foéa in the upper Drina valley. The possible record, dating to
the second century a.D., of a princeps at Skelani seems to locate the
Dindari (33) in the middle Drina valley. Celtic names on epitaphs in that
area suggest that they, like the Celegeri just across the border in Moesia,
were really a group of the powerful Celtic Scordisci, whose northern
communities survived as a cévitas with their original name across the
border in Pannonia.83 Like the Pirustae it may have been deliberate
policy to break them down into smaller groups and, in the case of the
Scordisci, to divide them between three different Roman provinces.

Nothing on relative strength or conventus organization appears in
Pliny’s list of Pannonian civitates, which corresponds closely with the
account of Ptolemy. As in Dalmatia several new formations appear,
some named after rivers or places, while along the Danube in the north
the Romans appear to have wrought major changes through the
movement of whole communities on either bank of the river. The
following communities can be located, downstream along the three

82 Vell. Pat. 11.115.4.

83 Alfdldy 1964 (£ 646). The reconstruction has been rejected, on various grounds, by Papazoglu
1978 (E 681) 371-8.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

COLONIZATION 579

major rivers: along the Danube the Boii, Azali, Eravisci, Hercuniates,
Andizetes, Cornacates, Amantini and Scordisci; along the Drava the
Serretes, Serapilli, Iasi, Andizetes and, between Serapilli and Boii, the
Arabiates; along the Sava, the Catari, Latobici, Varciani, Colapiani,
Osseriates, Breuci, Amantini and Scordisci. The Belgitae named by Pliny
cannot be placed. A later addition was the civitas of the Cotini, perhaps in
the low-lying ground south of Lake Balaton. Some of the above were
well-known peoples before the conquest, notably the Boii, Breuci,
Andizetes, Amantini, Scordisci and Latobici. Others are named from
single places, the Cornacates from Cornacum (Sotin on the Danube
above Belgrade), the Varciani from Varceia (attested but not located)
and the Osseriates from a place somewhere on the middle Sava.
Colapiani and Arabiates are named from the rivers Colapis (Kulpa) and
Arabo (Raba), while perhaps the Hercuniates recalled in some way the
Hercynia Silva, the great German forest beyond the Danube. Breuci and
Amantini, prominent during the rebellion in a.p. 6-8, are likely to have
been broken up into several civitates. Possibly the Cornacates belonged to
the latter, while the Osseriates, Colapiani and Varciani were all created
from the powerful Breuci. Similarly the Arabiates and Hercuniates in the
west perhaps belonged to the Boii. The Illyrian Azali may also-have been
detached from the Breuci and transported north to a new home on the
Danube between the Celtic Boii and Eravisci, possibly after the Be/lum
Pannonicum of 14-19 B.C. Beyond the river such changes were matched by
the eastward migration of the Suebic Marcomanni and, somewhat later,
the move of the Sarmatian Jazyges into the plain between Pannonia and
Dacia (see above).

The identification and location of native communities in Moesia is
hindered by an almost total lack of inscriptions earlier than the Flavian
period. It can be assumed that Roman occupation and organization of
Moesia was attended by less drastic measures towards the native
population than had been the case in IIlyricum. Pliny’s list of peoples
derives from the period before Moesia was extended to the Black Sea
following the annexation of Thrace under Claudius and comprises
Dardani, Celegeri, Triballi, Timachi, Moesi, Thraces and Scythiae
‘adjacent to the Black Sea’. Since the arrangement is geographical
rather than alphabetical it may not be the official register of civitates, and
seems to identify individual communities only as far east as the Triballi.
Among these the Celegeri in the north west may, it has been suggested
above, have belonged to the Celtic Scordisci, while the Timachi are the
inhabitants of the Timacus (Timok) valley. The account of Ptolemy,
which corresponds with Pliny’s only in respect of the Moesi and Triballi,
described arrangements following the Claudian reorganization. The

* Pliny, HN 111.149, Prol. Geog. 11.9.2; Mécsy 1974 ( 677) 67-9.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

580 134. DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

Tricornenses of Tricornium (Ritopek) replaced the Celegeri, the Picensii
of Pincum (Gradi8te) at the mouth of the Pincus (Pek) the Timachi, but
the Dardani in the south and the civitas of the Moesi (around Ratiaria)
continued as before. New civitates on the lower Danube were the
Oetenses of Utus, at the river Utus (Vit), the Dimenses of Dimum
(Baline), the Obulenses (who cannot be located), the Appiarenses of
Appiaria (Ryahovo) and the Peucini named from the island Peuce
(Chilia) in the Danube delta. Conditions were far from stable along the
lower Danube under Claudius and Nero, and there is some evidence for a
short-lived civitas of Dacians in the area, probably the result of depor-
tations from across the river.85

Like that of Moesia the organization of Noricum as a Roman province
appears to date from Claudius but a much earlier record of the native
peoples under Roman rule are the dedications set up at the Magdalens-
berg in 10/9 B.c. to the three ladies of Augustus’ family, Livia and the
two Tulias.& The eight peoples involved were the Norici, Ambilini,
Ambidr(avi), Uperaci, Saevates, Laianci, Ambisont(es) and Elveti.
Ptolemy’s list of the Norican peoples is broadly similar but adds the
name of the Alauni. The Norici occupied the heartland of the old
kingdom around Magdalensberg, perhaps the ancient capital Noreia, in
Carinthia and part of upper Styria. The Ambilini, whose name suggests
that they lived on both sides of a river, have been placed in the Gail
valley, and may be linked with a place Ilouna somewhere in south-west
Noricum. The Ambidravi were obviously along the Drau/Drava, and
the Uperaci perhaps on their east in the direction of Pannonia, where
they may be connected with a place named Upellae somewhere north of
Celeia. A place named Sebatum appears to locate the Saevates in the
Pustertal. These at first were grouped in a single civitas along with the
Laianci, who may then have been their neighbours on the west in the area
of Lienz, where the municipium Aguntum was later created. The
Ambisontes, who appear also among the list of defeated Alpine peoples
on Augustus’ monument near Monaco (La Turbie), occupied the long
valley of the Isonta or Ivarus (Salzach). Beyond them the Alauni dwelt
around Salzburg and the Chiemsee, where dedications were erected to
the local deities Alaunae, Alounae and Alona. The Elveti were doubtless
somehow connected with the Helvetii far to the west, and may originate
from the Helvetian Tigurini who entered Noricum in the second century
B.c. From their place in the order of the peoples on the Magdalensberg
dedications they were neighbours of the Ambisontes and possibly dwelt
on the upper Mur or lower Salzach. These nine civitates will not have
been the full total of Norican peoples since they cover only the

85 Mocsy 1970 (E 676) 29 n. 32, citing CIL xvi 15, a military diploma issued to a ‘Dacus’ on 9
February A.D. 71. 8 Sadel 1967 (E 690); Alfeldy 1974 (z 652) 67.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

COLONIZATION $81

south and west of the province. A suggestion that the total may have
been thirteen, to match the number of niches in the ‘meeting-hall’ at
Magdalensberg has been received with some scepticism.

The civitates peregrinae of the Danube provinces, perhaps totalling
more than eighty by the period of Claudius, remained under military
control for at least a generation. Some peoples not directly involved in
the fighting under Augustus were administered through ad hoc com-
mands, such as a prefecture of Iapydia and Liburnia during the war
against Bato in A.D. 9. Local leaders fought on the Roman side, such as
the leading citizen of Aenona in Liburnia awarded a ‘greater torque’ by
Tiberius for service in the ‘Dalmatian war’ of the same year.8? With
legions and auxilia now in more or less permanent bases the decades of
relative inactivity under Tiberius and his successors furnish some
evidence of how the military administration of the native peoples was
organized. Under Claudius or Nero the chief centurion of XIII Gemina
at Poetovio is found in charge of the neighbouring Colapiani. The Boii
and Azali in northern Pannonia were under the commander of the
auxiliary regiment at Arrabona, who was also charged with responsibi-
lity for that section of the Danube bank. The Pannonian Maezaei and
Daesitiates in northern Dalmatia were administered by the chief centur-
ion of the XI Claudia at Burnum. The first recorded procuratorial
governor of Noricum had earlier in his career administered the ‘civitates
of Moesia and Triballia’, either after or along with the post of chief
centurion of V Macedonica at Oescus, indicating the pre-Claudian
administration of what later became the provincia Moesia.88 The
communities of the Dardani may, in like fashion, have been the charge of
senior officers of the other legion in the Balkans, IV Scythica at Scupi or
Naissus. Among some of the peoples in Dalmatia there are signs that
native chiefs may have been entrusted with power not long after the
conquest, perhaps even avoiding altogether the unpleasantness of a
military administration, for example among the Iapodes, some of the
Delmatae and the Docleatae.®? That stage may have been a preliminary to
the later creation of cities, though in some cases long after the Julio-
Claudian era. All the recorded titles of rank, such as princeps, or social and
family organization, gens, cognatio, centuria, decurio and decuria, are of
Roman origin, though the structures they denoted already had a long
history and were to persist in some areas throughout the Roman era.®

All valid indicators combine to testify that Romanization, that much

% ILS 9199 (Colapiani); 2757 (Boii and Azali); CIL rm 2564 (Maezaei and Daesitiates); ILS 1349
(Moesia et Treballia).

® CIL m1 14325—8; 15064-5 (‘principes’ and ‘praepositi’ of the Iapodes at a shrine of Bindus
Neptunus near Bihaé in western Bosnia); 1m 2776 (‘princeps’ of Delmatae with Claudian
citizenship); [LJxg 185 (‘princeps’ of the ‘civitas Docleatium’). ™ Wilkes 1969 (E 706) 185-90.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

582 134, DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

observed process of material and cultural diffusion during the early
Principate, made little or no headway among the Illyrians in the Julio-
Claudian era.2! The same holds good for most of the Thracians,
notwithstanding their contacts with the Greek and hellenistic world, and
perhaps also for many of the Celtic peoples in the north west, where their
early adoption of what has been called the ‘epigraphic habit’ may have
led to an overestimation of Roman influence as a whole.

It is a fact that around the middle of the first century B.c. hellenistic
and Roman coins were entering the Danube lands in some quantities,
while several local groups among Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians and Celts
were producing their own coins to imitative standards. On the other
hand, it seems reasonable to accept the view that neither imports nor
local issues appear in sufficient quantities and nor do they exhibit a range
of denomination to indicate that there was a genuine economy based ona
circulating coinage. The many coins of Dyrrhachium and Apollonia that
appear in the area from ¢. 100 B.c. onwards may, as has been recently
suggested, relate to a slave trade, perhaps to meet the demands of a
Roman slave-based pastoral economy which had existed in the south-
west Balkans since the defeat of Macedon in 167 B.c. Similarly, the many
Roman denarii which appear in Dacia around the middle of the first
century B.c. may also derive from a traffic in slaves, in this case
Burebista’s Dacia acting as a much-needed procurement agency after
Pompey’s suppression of Mediterranean piracy in 67 B.c. Moreover,
when Burebista’s powerful Dacia had gone and Rome had advanced to ©
the Danube, the amounts of Roman silver found beyond the river
suggests that supplies of slaves had then to be sought from beyond the
river. Roman coins came first to Illyricum with the armies and their
followers. Hoards are found along the Pannonian Highway, at Emona,
Celeia and Poetovio, and in the area of Mursa and Sirmium on the lower
Drava and Sava, all undoubted military centres in the time of Augustus.
A similar origin is likely for hoards found among the Delmatae, at
Bastasi and Livno, and among the Iapodes at Ribnica in the Lika, though
a more authentic economy is indicated by coin hoards from the more
settled areas near the coast, Zadar and KruSevo in Liburnia, Capliina and
Narona in the Narenta valley and on the island Pharos at Hvar and
Gajine.%

Italy’s commerce with the north east was based on Aquileia and the
road from there across Pannonia to the Danube. Across the Julian Alpsa
Roman trading settlement (vicus) had already existed at Nauportus
(Vrhnika) in the late Republic, where once the native Celts had

%1 Note, however, Velleius’ comment on the widespread knowledge and use of Latin among the
Pannonians, 11.110.5; discussed by A. Mécsy in Hartley and Wacher 1983 (c 274) 235-7.
92 Mirnik 1981 (B 345); Crawford 1985 (B 320) 235-7.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

COLONIZATION 583

maintained their own customs station.% In addition to the traffic in
slaves, cattle, hides and amber from the Baltic, Aquileia was also the
focus for the wholesale import of finished metal products from Nori-
cum. By around 50 B.c. a terrace (920m) below the summit (1058m) of
the Magdalensberg was the site of a flourishing Roman emporium. Its
prosperity is perhaps best signified by the lifesize bronze of the Celtic
god Mars Latobius, dedicated by merchants from Aquileia, including
one of the well-known Barbii family. Iron, copper, lead, zinc and brass
(an alloy of copper and zinc) were all traded in quantities of finished
utensils. Some of the timber-framed houses of Roman merchants exhibit
a high standard of interior decoration. On the walls of some of the
cellars, which were filled with debris ¢. 35 B.c., each with its own shrine
of Mercury in a niche, were scratched inventories of finished wares; of
iron or steel, rings (anuli), axes (secures), anvils (secudes), and hooks (anci);
of brass or copper, jars (cafi), cups (cumbae), plates (disci), goblets (scifi)
and jugs (urcei). After the annexation of Noricum Magdalensberg
became the centre of a Roman administration and parts of the emporium
were levelled to make space for a complex of official buildings. On some
of the walls were scratched informal greetings to the emperors Augustus
and Tiberius, whose features appear in caricature, along with notices of
sacrifice, in addition to the more formal dedicatory plaques set up in 10/9
B.C. to ladies of the Augustan house by eight peoples of Noricum. Close
to these buildings a classical temple, 30m by 18m and still unfinished
when the settlement was abandoned, had perhaps been intended for a
newly instituted cult of Roma et Augustus.4

Far from being precursors to Roman political and economic domina-
tion, the Roman settlements in Illyricum of the late Republic had little or
no impact on the native peoples. Some J/atifundia may have existed
around the lower Neretva on lands seized from the Delmatae but
elsewhere the coastal settlements rather seem to have turned their backs
on the interior, as has often happened in Dalmatian history. When the
proconsul P. Vatinius responded to an inquiry by Cicero, addressed to
his predecessor, regarding a runaway slave last seen at Narona, the
proconsul’s headquarters, the report that the fugitive had last been heard
of among the Ardiaei implied that that was really the end of the matter,
though Vatinius promised to do his best to find him if he was still within
the province.®5 Veteran and civilian settlements in Achaea and Macedo-
nia in the period up to Actium contributed little to urban development in
those areas, save for the major centres of Patrae, Corinth, Nicopolis and
Philippi. In Illyricum colonies around this time were also a mix of
civilian and military settlement but with barely any trace of a native

9 Tac. Ann. 1.20; Pliny, HN 11.128; ILLRP 33~4 (‘magistri’ of views); SaSel 1966 (z 689).
* Piccottini 1977 (E 683) and for the graffiti, Egger 1961 (£ 662). % Cic. Fam. v.g.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

584 134, DANUBIAN AND BALKAN PROVINCES

component. By contrast the Julio-Claudian urbanization of Liburnia and
Noricum owed little to Roman settlement, civil or military.

In the matter of town-planning and civic architecture the early Roman
cities were far from uniform. Narona (Vid) retained the character of an
emporium on a hill enclosed by pre-Roman walls but containing some
fine buildings and monuments, many erected by prosperous freedmen.
Here the landowning class, if it figured at all in the life of the city, chose
to reside in the elegant and well-appointed residences known to have
existed in the surrounding country during the first century a.p. At
Salona a new forum was planned within a street-grid at the centre of the
old conventus, though in the grandeur of its architecture it cannot compare
with the impressive double-precinct forum and Capitolium at Iader,
which occupied a large block, 180m by 130m, at the centre of the city’s
street-grid. At nearby Aenona the Capitolium stood within a new forum,
in which were placed several larger than lifesize statues of the Julio-
Claudians carved in Carrara marble. The symmetrically planned defences
and street grid of Emona, 524m by 435m, recall those of Augustan
foundations at Augusta Praetoria (Aosta) or Augusta Taurinorum
(Turin). The later veteran colonies at Aequum and Savaria were also
planned cities, as was the municipium Virunum in Noricum, though the
latter lacked defensive walls. Not all Roman cities were on new and level
sites: the Claudian municipia in Liburnia saw native hill-settlements
physically transformed into Roman cities, for example Asseria and
Varvaria, with a regular forum and other public works inserted within the
defended precinct. The territory of several colonies in Illyricum is
known to have been surveyed and divided by roads and paths into grids
of square centuriae. The systems so far known, at Salona, Iader, Narona,
Epidaurum, Pola and Savaria, had centuriae measuring 20 by 20 actus (c.
710m by 710m) giving an area of ¢. 124 acres (¢. 51 ha), the prevailing
standard of the early Principate.%

Though some vestiges of hellenistic traditions survived in the
Adriatic cities, the Roman cities in the Danube lands as a whole exhibit a
wholly Roman and Italian character. Throughout the Julio-Claudian era
bricks and roof-tiles produced in large factories around Aquileia, at least
one of which (the Pansiana) was imperially owned, were shipped down
the Adriatic, although the army began to make its own bricks and tiles
locally under Claudius.*’ The Danube armies stimulated local produc-

% Zaninovié 1977 (EZ 711) 791-3, and 1980 (E 712) (Narona); Clairmont 1975 (E 655) 38-82
(Salona); Suié 1976 (E 697) 150-3 (Iader and Aenona), 138 fig. 74 (Asseria), 88-104 (centuriation);
$a%el 1968 (£ 691) 349-55 (Emona); Mécsy 1974 (E 677) 74-89 (Emona and Savaria), 78-9
(centuriation); Wilkes 1969 (E 706) 359 fig. 15 and 369 (Aequum), 366-7 (Asseria); Alféldy 1974 (E
652) 87-9 (Virunum). Bradford 1957 (A 7) 175-93 (centuriation).

7% Wilkes 1969 (E 706) 499-502; Matijasi€é 1987 (E 674) 495—531.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

COLONIZATION 585

tion of ornate tombstones, especially in the fine limestone of the
Dalmatian coast. Some early legionary monuments in Dalmatia are in the
style of the ‘door-stone’, a type originating in Asia Minor favoured by
recruits of eastern origin, notably in legion VII. The most popular form,
both among soldiers and in the cities, incorporated the ‘window-
portraits’ of the metropolitan Roman fashion within an architectural
frame of pediment and columns in relief on a standing tombstone, with
the framed panel for the epitaph below. A similar version became
popular in Noricum and Pannonia, where Celtic and Roman funeral
images appear in combination. Roman epitaphs are found on the
Liburnian circular tombstones, a native tradition which remained
popular in the new municipia of the Julio-Claudian era. It is a relief
sculpture in Dalmatian limestone which provides perhaps the most
authentic image of Rome in the Danube lands at this time, a monument
at Tilurium which depicts the trophy (¢ropaeum) or Roman victory with
two native Illyrians chained to its base, awaiting a fate that was all too
certain.°8

Before the conquest was completed Thracians, Illyrians and Celts
were being recruited for service in the Roman axuxilia, both as cavalry
and infantry. Several units appear bearing the names of such peoples as
Breuci, Delmatae and Pannonii. The many Dalmatians who served in the
imperial fleets at Ravenna and Misenum came it seems as much from the
inland peoples as from the seafarers along the Adriatic.” No conse-
quence of this recruitment is discernible before the end of the Julio-
Claudian period in respect of the spread of Roman ways and habits.
Doubtless there were some, their origins concealed, who rose from these
lands to high positions in the Roman hierarchy.!© No Roman governor
praises the Danubians for their eager embrace of Roman mores: indeed
the contrary was for long to prevail.

Conquest and retention of the Danube lands was, in the military
sphere, the distinguishing achievement of Augustus’ Principate. A
harsh, underdeveloped and for long intractable part of Europe brought
no profit and much loss. Yet completion of the task was essential for a
strategy which deployed the new standing armies around the borders
and far from the centre of affairs where their presence nearly always
posed a threat to order. The Via Egnatia no longer saw the passage of
armies to fight civil wars, and only the fall of a dynasty drew the legions
back to the heart of the empire from their remote bases along the
Danube.

% Illustrations in Wilkes 1969 (e 706).
* Kraft 1931 (2 672); Starr 1960 (D 237) 75.
10 Certainly Liburnia had links with some leading senators in the first century. The consul of 16

B.c. L. Tarius Rufus may be of Liburnian origin, and the distinguished jurist of the Flavian era L.
Iavolenus Priscus had Liburnian family connexions. See Alfoldy 1968 (2 651) 100-16.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 137

ROMAN AFRICA: AUGUSTUS TO VESPASIAN

C. R. WHITTAKER

I. BEFORE AUGUSTUS

If the province of Africa under the Roman Republic was not quite a land
without a history, as Mommsen described it, it was certainly not central
to Roman interests. The administration from the Punic town of Utica
was rudimentary, largely a matter of supervising the local communities
and contracting out the taxes. Nor is there much evidence of a military
garrison apart from the small contingent with the governor. This did
not, of course, prevent Roman and Italian immigrants from coming,
whether as settlers on the land or as businessmen and tax-farmers. But
the impression we get is that the numbers were not great, even in the
coastal towns, where Roman enclaves formed.! The official foundation
of the colony of Carthage in 122 B.c. had been a disaster that had left
stranded we do not know how many on its territory. Conservative
Roman sentiment had resented the expense of the province and had
feared to send out colonists. Evidence of Romans and Italians being
settled by Marius is so thin that it is unwise to guess too much about their
numbers, although some immigrants probably did arrive.

The only exception to this was the Gaetulian veterans of Marius,
settled beyond the far borders of the province, who proved a valuable aid
to Iulius Caesar in his campaigns in Africa in 46 B.c., and who were to be
an important element in the new Augustan dispensation.? During the
civil wars between Pompey and Caesar a fair number of Romans took
refuge in Africa. But even so, the Pompeians were hard put to it to raise
12,000 men and, even after reinforcements of 10,000 from Cyrene, they
almost certainly had to include native Africans, slaves and freedmen to
raise a force of 40,000.

If immigration was relatively light, economic interest in the Roman
province of Africa and the adjacent territories of the Mauretanias was
considerable — in particular because of the fertile land, the corn and
(probably) the slaves. By Cicero’s day Africa was regarded as a ‘bulwark’
of Rome’s food supply. Beyond the provincial borders Libyan cities like
Vaga (mod. Beja) and Cirta (mod. Constantine) were teeming with

! Cf. Caes. BAfr. 97.2. 2 Caes. BASr. 35.4.
586

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BEFORE AUGUSTUS 587

Italian negotiatores in the second century B.c. Archaeological sites in
modern western Morocco are reported to contain the relics of as many
Italian republican amphorae as those in southern France.? Sales of land in
the African province are recorded in the Agrarian Law of 111 B.C. to
have taken place on several occasions, probably to absentee owners in
Rome. There may have been further sales thereafter. All this interest was
to have its influence on Augustan policy.

Precisely what Iulius Caesar intended or achieved during the brief
period of his dictatorship between 46 and 44 B.c. is not always clear.
Massive indemnities were laid upon the coastal cities of Byzacium
(south-eastern Tunisia) and Tripolitania, the latter being required to pay
an annual tax of 1 million litres of oil, which probably continued until the
third century A.D. The adjacent territory of Numidia was organized into
a second province named Africa Nova, which Caesar announced would
pay 8,000 tonnes of corn in tax, to the acclaim of the Roman people. New
settlers came, too, not only to the province of Nova, with its curious
annex around Cirta, but also to other places in the old province. Many
were veterans of the civil war, hastily demobilized to avoid trouble. But
many were surely some of those 80,000 inhabitants of the city of Rome
whom Caesar sent abroad. Africa’s land and food continued to excite
Roman interest.*

Here we run into intractable problems of identifying and dating the
colonial foundations which absorbed many of these settlers. While there
can be little doubt about Caesar’s intentions to reorganize the African
province, there is no way of proving whether the final act of foundation
was Caesar’s or his heir’s. The best evidence we have of Caesar’s work is
an inscription from the colonia of Curubis (mod. Korba) on Cape Bon,
recording an urban magistrate in 45 B.c. But in a sense it hardly matters.
Both Caesar and Octavian acted under similar pressures and it seems
perfectly possible that what was de facto begun by Caesar was formally
completed by Augustus. Those who perceive grandiose hellenistic
schemes in the settlements5 perhaps forget the simple logic of what took
place. Civil wars left confiscated land available for allocation to the
victors. Veterans and the Roman poor could reanimate and control some
of the most productive territory known in its day.

The foundation of the colony of Carthage illustrates perfectly the
difficulty we have in separating Caesar and Augustus. By the end of
Augustus’ rule Carthage had become the administrative capital of the
united provinces of Africa Vetus and Nova and a city of some size and

3 Cic. Leg. Man. 54; cf. shipping at Utica, Caes. BCiv. 11.25.6. For amphorae, A. Hesnard in Lancel

1985 (E 748) 49-59.
4 Dio xim1.14.1; Suet. Iu/. 42.1. The best discussion of Caesarian settlements is Teutsch 1962 (E
765). 5 See Broughton 1971 (£ 721), against Kornemann, who put forward this view.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

8007 ‘ssorg AszaatuQ asprquieg © sUTTUO saroisty eSspruquiey

‘eouyy “€; dew

NOE.
(sIuVINSNODONd)
VINVLITOdIHL

BEFORE AUGUSTUS 589

splendour. The territory or pertica of Carthage stretched at least as far as
Thugga (mod. Dougga), 1ookm down the Bagradas valley, incorporat-
ing a whole series of communities of both Roman settlers-and natives.
But who was the founder of Roman Carthage? Most now agree that,
although Caesar may have drawn up plans, the actual, physical founda-
tion was probably not his, if only because the pertica of Carthage
extended into lands which formed part of Caesar’s province of Africa
Nova — surely an impossibility until after his death, when the two
provinces became one.

But when after 44 B.c. this happened is impossible to be sure. An
enigmatic statement by the Christian theologian, Tertullian, two centur-
ies later, claimed that it was ‘after the violent abuse of Lepidus and after
long delays by Caesar, when Statilius Taurus set up the walls and Sentius
Saturninus pronounced the religious rites’. The most plausible date is
perhaps 36 or 35 B.c., when Cassius Dio records that Octavian sent out
Statilius Taurus as his agent to win over ‘both the Africas’. The old
provinces were evidently not yet united and were ‘in need of a
settlement’. Taurus accomplished both, at a time when Octavian’s army
was racked with mutinous troops demanding their rewards and just after
the two governors of Vetus and Nova had been fighting each other. The
grant of municipal status to Utica in 36 B.c., presumably after adjustment
of its boundaries, adds some corroboration that this was the period of
reorganization for the whole territory.’

The most cogent objection to such a date is that the prestigious cult of
the Cereres fertility gods in Carthage, for which we have a lot of
inscriptional evidence in later periods, adopted a system of dating its
priesthoods which probably went back to before 35 B.c., although the
evidence is not entirely consistent. It is not, however, compellingly self-
evident that the start of the cult, which had had a long Libyan history
before this, and the foundation of the Roman colony were linked.® Nor is
it difficult to accept the evidence that the final colonial charter and
‘freedom’ of the city waited until 29 or 28 B.c., since delays between the
award of status and the adoption of a charter are not unknown
elsewhere.?

6 NTH 510.

7 Tertull. De Pall. 1; Dio xu1x.14.6, 34.1. Utica—Dio xix. 16.1. M. Le Glay in Lancel 1985 (E 748)
235~48 is the most recent to put the view contradicted here.

8 Février 1975 (& 731), contra, the view of Fishwick and Shaw 1978 (£ 733). Gascou 1987 (E 740)
has radically undermined the accepted dates of inscriptions and favours 44 B.C. as year 1 of the
Cereres priesthood.

9 Dio 1.43.1. A sensible summary of the evidence is in Van Nerom 1969 (E 754).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

590 132. ROMAN AFRICA

It. AFRICA AND THE CIVIL WARS, 44-31 B.C.

The civil wars which broke out after the death of Iulius Caesar in 44 B.C.
inevitably sucked in not only the two provinces of Africa Nova and
Vetus but also the allied kings of the Maghreb who depended on the
favours of Roman politicians but were not above profiting from their
rivalries.!° The Libyan prince Arabion, for instance, returned to central
Mauretania in 44 B.C. and, encouraged by the sons of Pompey in Spain,
killed Caesar’s old ally Sittius, who had been settled with his mixed bag
of followers at Cirta. Having arrived at an accord with the remaining
Sittiani, he brought them over in support of the senatorial governor of
Vetus, Q. Cornificius, against the Caesarian governor of Nova, T.
Sextius — only to.switch support completely in favour of Sextius against
Cornificius as the luck of Caesar’s murderers ran out in 42 B.c. He
subsequently resisted Octavian’s nominee, Fango, but was executed by
Sextius (by now a supporter of Antony) on the suspicion of his too great
ambition, which caused his supporters to change sides yet again in
support of Fango. Sextius finally drove the whole lot out of the African
provinces.

Further west in Morocco a similar power struggle was being played
out between King Bogud, who supported Antony against Bocchus
when the latter gave his support to the revolt of Tingis (mod. Tangiers)
against Bogud. For his opportunistic action Octavian rewarded Bocchus
with Bogud’s kingdom plus the rest of western Mauretania from Tingis
to Cirta. This large territory Bocchus ruled until his death in 33 B.c.

The events of the civil war are confusing and confused. After
Brundisium the two African provinces were allotted to Lepidus in 40
B.c. as his share of the triumviral dispositions and he built up an
enormous army there of sixteen legions for the invasion of Sicily in 36
B.C. against the Pompeians. This massive army group certainly included
many native recruits and must have denuded Africa of its defences. After
the disappearance of Lepidus, Octavian — as we saw — realized the
pressing need to restore order and sent one of his iron men, Statilius
Taurus, in 36 B.c. to dothe job. The archives record three triumphs ex
Africa between 34 and 28 B.c., which we may assume to have been won
for border wars to secure the newly formed province of Africa
Proconsularis and its colonists.

But the wars were also partly the consequence of the death of Bocchus
in 33 B.c., who had controlled the Mauretanias as Octavian’s nominee.
Dio claims that Octavian actually annexed this vast territory, and this has
been taken as explanation of the anomalous fact that later, after a new
puppet ruler, Juba II, had been installed in 25 B.c., we find a number of

10 The complex narrative is mainly in App. BCiv. rv.5 3ff; supplemented by Dio xivut.21-23.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTAN EXPANSION 591

Roman veteran colonies existing within the native kingdom. On balance
it seems unlikely that Octavian went this far. There is no allusion to
Mauretania as a province in the account of the settlement of 27 B.c.; nor
to the name of any governor. Whereas the fact that some new colonies
were founded in western Mauretania, probably in 33 B.c., is no proof of
Octavian’s intention, since we know that later, after 25 B.c., the
Mauretanian colonies were administered from Spain, which shows that
such an arrangement was not an institutional impossibility.!! To install
Juba as ruler in 33 B.c., after he had been raised at Rome in Octavian’s
own household, would have provoked a violent reaction among the
Mauri (as indeed happened later) just at a point when the civil war was at
its most critical. But so too would annexation. Octavian simply shelved a
decision until 25 B.c., when, after his expedition to Spain, he saw the
pressing need for action. Juba, as we shall see, was an important agent of
what Augustus intended for the whole of the African settlement.

III. AUGUSTAN EXPANSION

Very little is known of the details of the Augustan expansion. We have to
be content with names on triumphal lists plus a few names in the literary
sources, some of them inadequate for positive identification. Wars are
recorded in 21 B.C., 19 B.C., ¢. 15 B.C., ¢. A.D. 3 and A.p. 6. The end result
waS a permanent winter camp for the army at Ammaedara (mod.
Haidra), at the source of the river Bagradas (mod. Medjerda) on the high
plains of Tunisia, and a road completed by a.p. 14 dropping down from
the uplands via Capsa (mod. Gafsa) to Tacape (mod. Gabes) on the
Tunisian coast.!2

Much speculation has gone into just how far beyond this line the
Roman armies advanced, fuelled by an intriguing report full of myster-
ious place-names from the Elder Pliny concerning a desert campaign
against the southern Garamantes by L. Cornelius Balbus, who
triumphed in 19 B.c.!3 There are also some briefer references to a victory
over the Gaetulians, after they had rebelled against Juba, won by Cossus
Cornelius Lentulus in a.p. 6. Between these two dates we also learn of a
victory gained by a certain Quirinius over the Marmaridae and Gara-

"| Dio xurx.43.7, Lit.12.4—6; Pliny, HN v.z. Gsell 1930 (z 741) 223, Gascou 1982 (E 738) 144 and
Mackie 1983 (& 753) accept the brief provincial period of Mauretania from 33 to 25 8.Cc., perhaps
governed from Spain; but the main argument, that Octavian would not have handed over
Mauretania because of the propaganda war against Antony, is not persuasive, given the difficulties
of annexing a huge, wild territory just when preparing for civil war in 33 B.c. For the colonies, see
Mackie 1983 (E 753).

'2 CIL vut 10018; EJ? 290; IL.AFr 654 — Asprenas ... pr.cos ... viam ex castris bibernis Tacapes
muniendam curavit. legio II] Augusta (Tacapes is an indeclinable variation of Tacape — here ‘to Tacape’).

13 Pliny, HN v.35—8; Flor. 11.31; Dio rv.28.3—4. Pliny’s names are analysed by Daniels 1970 (£
725) 13-16 and Desanges 1957 (E 727).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

592 137%, ROMAN AFRICA

mantes (see ch. 137, p. 635—G) and of triumphal ornamenta being granted
to L. Passienus Rufus. But wild theories about Balbus’ penetration to the
Niger Bend via the Tasili and Hoggar Mountains can really not be
credited, given the terrible problems encountered by far better equipped
French expeditions to the Sahara in the nineteenth century, and we must
settle for the more sober judgment that what we are witnessing is the
reaction of Libyan tribes to Roman imperialism over the whole of the
southern pre-desert.

The appointment of Juba II in 25 B.c. over a huge eaneaey that
extended not only to the Mauretanias (roughly central Algeria to
Morocco) but also in theory along the whole Gaetulian or Numidian
borders of the Roman province as far as Cyrenaica, provoked a chronic
and violent response from the various ‘nomadic’ peoples, as Strabo calls
them.'4 Some of these peoples in loosely confederated groups tradition-
ally migrated up onto the plains of Constantine and to the Tunisian
Dorsal, recognizing no artificial frontiers. An inscription recording
disturbances, which was set up by a Roman settler about A.D. 3 near the
colony of Assuras (mod. Zanfur) in the rich Tunisian corn-lands,
perhaps reflects the problem this caused. At all events, Cossus is said to
have ‘held back the Musulami and Gaetuli in their widespread wander-
ing to a restricted territory and forced them through fear to keep away
from Roman frontiers’.!5

References to the Marmaridae, who are normally associated with
Cyrenaica, and to the Garamantes of the Fezzan in modern Libya show
how far eastwards these African borderlands extended — so much so that
there have been hypotheses that Tripolitania was temporarily detached
from the province of Africa to that of Cyrene and that there was a joint
strategy conducted by the two governors. If so, it was brief and little of
permanence was achieved, since the archaeology of the Fezzan and
Libyan Valleys reveals no Roman contact with the hinterland before the
Flavian period.'® But we can be sure that Juba’s kingdom was regarded
as an integral part of the defences of Africa and it was his inability to
handle such a large remit that drew the Romans southwards.

The southern tribes saw Juba for what he was, a Roman agent, and
they did not in any case recognize the authority of super-kings. It is not
hard to see what they were fighting for. The Musulami, one of the
principal names mentioned in the campaigns, controlled a region near
Ammaedara, and it was here that the legion’s headquarters was finally

4 Strab. xvi1.3.7 (828); cf. v1.4.2 (286-8c). ‘Nomades’ in Greek can also mean Numidian. For
Juba’s kingdom, see Desanges 1964 (£ 728).

1S CIL vim 16456; Oros. Adv. Pag. vi.21.18; Flor. 11.3.

16 The UNESCO Libyan Valleys Survey has been reported in successive volumes of Libyan
Studies since 1979. It was Gsell 1930 (£ 741) who first suggested Tripolitania may have been
temporarily attached to Cyrenaica.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

TIBERIUS AND TACFARINAS 593

established. The road running from the base to the Gulf of Gabes
constituted a check to the traditional, seasonal movements northwards
of the Gaetulian Libyans from the oases and Chotts (salt marshes) of
south-eastern Tunisia. Further east, Tripolitania needed protection from
the Garamantes of the Fezzan and the Nasamones of the Syrtic Gulf and
both must have seen the road that was completed soon after Augustus’
.teign along the eastern Jebel Nefoussa as a threat to their indepen-
dence.!7 Whether Augustus really had in mind a grand design or was
merely reacting to protect the provincials is discussed later. It is clear that
he did not solve the problem.

IV. TIBERIUS AND TACFARINAS

Armed resistance after the initial conquest was fairly typical of the
process of pacification in most western provinces, the revolt of Sacrovir
and Florus in Gaul, Boudica’s rebellion in Britain, the attempt of Civilis
in Germany being obvious examples. A variety of reasons for this
resentment against Roman rule is given in our sources; hatred of
arrogant or corrupt officials, dislike of military recruiting officers. Often,
no doubt, it was sheer opportunism when Rome seemed to be otherwise
engaged. But above all it was the imposition of Roman taxation on land
which caused the greatest anger.!8

The revolt of Tacfarinas must be seen within the context of the Roman
advances, which brought with them steady appropriation of land, the
imposition of an ordered tax system and obligations to provide recruits.
Although little is known about the tax arrangements, an undated
dedication by forty-four civitates of Africa to a tribune of the III
Augustan legion who had conducted the census, shows the hand taken
by the military in the operation.!° Tacfarinas, a chief of the Numidian
Musulami, had served in the Roman auxiliaries, no doubt as part of an
ethnic unit. So we can see all the elements of imperialism which absorbed
the southern Gaetulians into the Roman administration.

The cadastration of southern Tunisia for tax purposes, completed in
A.D. 29/30, was probably begun as soon as Ammaedara became the
legionary headquarters, since the decumanus maximus, the base line of
orientation for the cadaster, was probably fixed on the conical peak of
Jebel bou el Hanéche just north of the camp.” The various ‘Gaetulian’
tribes — the name is used by the Romans loosely to mean southerners —
such as the Musulami, the Cinithii, the Nybgenii and the Tacapitani,

17 BJ? 291 is a milestone recording the road.

'8 Dyson 1975 (c 266). For causes in general, see Dio txvit.4.6; Tac. Ann. 111.40; Hist 1v.14; Agr.
xox. 9 CIL ut 338. Tacfarinas’ land demands, Tac. Ann. 111.73.

2 Trousset 1978 (E 768) 141.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

594 137, ROMAN AFRICA

therefore, found their seasonal movements controlled by the frontier
roads and fortifications. Equally provocative, they were probably
expected to acknowledge the Roman puppet Juba as their overlord,
which gave them common cause for resistance with the western Mauri.
Juba’s silver coins recording victories in A.D. 16 —a year before the date
of Roman intervention — perhaps show that Juba had been trying to deal
with the troublesome tribes already.?!

It is hard to believe that the war between Tacfarinas and Rome, which
eventually developed in a.p. 17 and lasted until a.p. 24 was a serious
threat to Roman power in Africa. Velleius Paterculus, a contemporary,
barely mentions it and, apart from brief references in later epitomators, it
is only really Tacitus who gives the episode any prominence, because he
was obsessed with the story of the emperor Tiberius, in whose reign the
events occurred. He had little interest in the geography of the war and
none in its causes. Various place-names are mentioned in the fighting —
Thubuscum, Thala, Auzia, Cirta, Lepcis and the river Pagyda; various
tribes like the Cinithii and Garamantes are said to have been involved.22
But how much we can reconstruct out of this is very uncertain. Auzea, if
the same as the later town of that name (mod. Sour El Ghozlane) south
east of Algiers, lies 1,600 km west of Lepcis Magna. Thubuscum may be
later Thubursicum Numidarum (mod. Khamissa) in east Algeria, or
Thubursicum Bure (mod. Teboursouk) in Tunisia or one of half a dozen
other like-sounding names. The basic fact, however, remains; the war
was wide-ranging and it both implicated the Garamantes in the east and
extended deep into Algeria in the west.

The fighting, which began with an attack on Thala near Ammaedara,
extended to other ‘cities’. This probably means that there was a series of
hit-and-run raids or razzia, typical of mounted nomadic people, deep
into the African province. The Gaetulians eluded Roman reprisals by
retreating into the ‘desert’, until the arrival of Iunius Blaesus, uncle of
Sejanus, as the new governor in A.D. 18. His tactics, like those of his
successor, P. Dolabella in a.p. 23-4, were to isolate Tacfarinas from his
base by what was called ‘blockhouse’ strategy in the Boer War — the
location of permanent castella and fortifications at ‘suitable places’, most
plausibly at points like Kasserine, Sbeitla and Thelepte to control the
passes up on to the Tunisian Dorsal, where later Roman towns
developed.

The IX legion (or detachments of it) was posted from Pannonia,#

21 Desanges 1964 (E 728).

2 Tac. Ann. 11.52; 11.20-1, 32, 73~4; IV.13, 23—6; Vell. Pat. 11.125. Places discussed by Syme 1931
(E 764).

23 Tac. Ann. 11.74 and Ej? 210 show the commander, P. Cornelius Lentulus Scipio, came with
the legion.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

TIBERIUS AND TACFARINAS 595

partly to protect Lepcis Magna from the threat of the Garamantes and
partly, it would seem, to keep the Libyan peasants in check in the old
province, since they erupted when the legion was withdrawn about a.p.
22. Blaesus’ settlement, for which he was awarded triumphal honours
that year, further deteriorated when Juba’s son, Ptolemy, succeeded his
father in A.D. 23 and alienated many of his Mauri troops. Despite this,
Dolabella, an experienced commander on the Danube, finally trapped
Tacfarinas at Auzia in Mauretania in A.D. 24, killing him and executing
several of his Musulami leaders. Soon after this a Roman military prefect
was set up over the nationes Gaetulicae. The end of the Musulami also
brought the Garamantes to Rome to beg for peace, for which they had
probably to pay by the loss of some of the territory that we now find
being allotted to Lepcis Magna.”4

From now until the end of Tiberius’ rule we hear of no more African
resistance, although we may suspect there were continual troubles’
caused by the cadastration that was carried out by the army over a great
breadth of land in south-eastern Tunisia. Judging by the existing,
numbered marker stones, it extended over at least 27,000 square km, as
far as the Chott el Fedjaj. Although this cadastration divided the land
into large blocks for the purpose of tax, there is occasional evidence of
centuriation into smaller units and probable allotment of land. By
A.D.29/30 the main work of survey had been finished and the marker
stones, of which we have twenty surviving examples, were set up by the
governor C: Vibius Marsus. Dolabella, who was almost certainly the
initiator of the survey, for which he had recently had experience in
Dalmatia, was not much honoured in Rome but he was remembered in
Lepcis.25

The Tacfarinas episode is less important for the threat that it posed
than for the information it provides about the character of African
society and frontier relations in this period. Several features need
explanation: the width of native territorial alliances, yet the feebleness of
the resistance; the close relationship between the desert and the sown and
the effect on this of Roman intervention. The use of general terms like
tota Gaetulia or Numidia by ancient and modern historians gives a
misleading impression of African unity, which did not exist. Modern
comparative evidence from semi-nomadic peoples of the southern
Tunisian and Algerian marches suggests that ‘tribes’ are themselves
highly unstable alliances of both sedentary and mobile fractions whose
unity depends on success in raiding warfare and economic reciprocity.
Rights of movement, rights of grazing and rights of exchange, which can

* Aur. Viet. 4.2; ILS 2721; IRT 331; EJ? 218a (dated a.p. 35/6).
25 Land markers — CIL vm 22786 (cf. EJ? 264), 22789; JL Tux 71, 73, 74- Lepcis monument— AE
1961, 107-8. See Trousset 1978 (E 768).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

596 137, ROMAN AFRICA

take place over quite wide distances, are more important than complete
ownership of the land and territorial demarcation.

Tacfarinas was a Numidian or Gaetulian member of the Musulami
‘tribe’, who, having proved his leadership in war, established far-
ranging but fragile alliances with other Mauri, Gaetulian and Gara-
mantes groups, based on resentment of Roman rule. His own Musulami
apparently maintained specific links with people on the Tunisian and
Algerian uplands, as well as operating from winter bases in the regions of
the southern oases and Chotts. We are told that peasants of central
Tunisia supported him, and Tacitus says that he traded for the corn that
grew there. His request for a land concession for his people could mean
that he wished to become sedentary; but it could just as well mean a
demand for free access to historic grazing grounds. We know from
Massinissa’s dispute with the Punic Carthaginians that access to the
‘Great Plains’ of central Tunisia, the fertile uplands where the main
production of wheat took place, was regarded by Libyan nomads in
those days as their historic right.”

Almost certainly Roman property rights and boundaries were con-
cepts unknown in customary practice for southern groups like the
Tacapitani or Nybgenii who had had little or no contact with either
Punic or Roman republican powers. The Roman term for ‘marking out’
(4imitare) the land by boundary stones of the cadaster was a word that
came to be used of a frontier and carried with it even at this stage the
implication of ‘limiting’ and controlling the movements of the southern
tribal groups.?’ If Tacfarinas had used the routes south of the Aures
Mountains to reach the plain of Constantine, as seems probable, then the
need to control such routes must have been evident already to the
Romans.

Vv. GAIUS TO NERO

The emperor Gaius has been credited with two important changes in
north Africa: the separation of the army under its /egatus from the
province of Africa; and the ending of the independent status of
Mauretania. Neither is strictly correct. Each stemmed from a single
cause. Tacitus and Dio record the first event briefly and with contradic-
tory information,” but they broadly agree that fear of senior senators in
command of an army stimulated Gaius in A.D. 37 into separating the
legion, not from the province but from the direct command and

26 Note the Numidians at Masculula not far from Simitthu (cf. n. 29 below), EJ? 111. Tacfarinas’
corn ~ Tac. Aan. rv.13. Massinissa’s claims — App. Pun. 68.

27 leg(io) II Aug(usta) leimitavit, e.g. EJ? 264.

2% Tac. Hist. 1v.48; Dio trx.20.7. Benabou 1972 (E 714).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GAIUS TO NERO 597

patronage of the governor, by placing an imperial legate in charge. The
army remained active within the province.2? Such a form of split
command was not unparalleled nor even remarkable, and proconsular
governors continued from time to time to take the military command. It
is, however, geographically correct that soon after this, in the Flavian
period, the army’s base moved into the ill-defined region of Numidia
south and west of Ammaedara, first to Theveste (mod. Tebessa) and then
to Lambaesis (mod. Lambése).

The annexation of Mauretania, the huge territory extending from
Algeria west of the Ampsaga (mod. Oued el Kabir) to the Atlantic, was
the decision of Gaius’ successor, Claudius, following the war which
broke out after Gaius had executed Ptolemy in a.p. 4o. Exactly why
Gaius did this is a matter for debate, since Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio,
our main sources for the episode, had no love either for Gaius or for a
native king and they let their prejudices show.* Suetonius gives us a
childish story about how Ptolemy upstaged the emperor at a public
spectacle in Lyons by appearing adorned in a purple cloak. Dio more
realistically says there were fears that Ptolemy was becoming too
wealthy. Tacitus portrays Ptolemy as a weak, unpopular fop, dominated
by his freedmen.

The danger of the large kingdom of Mauretania to Rome always lay in
a ruler who might become too independent to control. Ptolemy’s
striking of gold coins, very much an imperial prerogative, suggests his
assertion of emancipation, just at the time when Gaius had been badly
shaken by a plot of distinguished senators on the northern frontier, one
of whose leaders was Cornelius Lentulus Cossus ‘Gaetulicus’, son of
Juba’s ally in a.p. 6 and therefore heir to his father’s political friends.
Ptolemy himself, no doubt fearing Roman penetration further and
further into Numidia and Mauretania, became a willing target for
conspiratorial plans. He was, after all, Antony’s grandson and cousin to
the emperor. It was no coincidence that Gaul was the place to which
Ptolemy was summoned in a.D. 39, since Gaius had gone there to deal
with the northern crisis. The bravado of the appearance confirmed that
he must go. With him went the last of the great Libyan kings.

If Ptolemy had been as unpopular as Tacitus described him, his death
would hardly have provoked a violent reaction in western Mauretania,
much less a rebellion conducted by one of his ‘freedmen’, Aedemon. One
suspects that Aedemon was in reality a vassal, one of the Mauri princes at
court, and that many Mauri chiefs saw in Ptolemy a symbol of their

2% E.g. EJ? 260—a soldier who served nineteen years in an outpost at Simitthu in the north west
of the province over this period; Tac. Hist. v.50 — the legate at Hadrumetum.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

598 13i, ROMAN AFRICA

freedom. In later years Roman governors thought it politic to honour
the name of Juba II and Ptolemy with commemorative statues and one
Roman pretender in A.D. 69 even took the name of Juba to win local
favour.>! From archaeological evidence it would appear that the rebel-
lion concentrated on violent attacks on towns of western Mauretania,
centres like Tamuda, Lixus and Kouass where Romans were no doubt
trading. At Volubilis, an important centre which may have had special
treaty status, Roman citizenship had already been extensively granted to
local families, as we know from two famous inscriptions commemorat-
ing M. Valerius Severus, son of Bostar, who raised a troop of irregular
horse and was subsequently able to petition for privileges, including
‘Roman citizenship’ (meaning, probably, municipal status) for the
town.32

The Roman campaign was a long and arduous affair, requiring
supplies from Spain. The main details come from the Elder Pliny, a
contemporary, supplemented by Cassius Dio. It is clear, however, that
Dio is correct against Pliny to date the war from A.D. 40 before Claudius’
accession. In A.D. 41-2 the theatre extended down the Moulouya gap to
the Middle Atlas and into the desert; but by 44 the campaign was over
and the whole territory was annexed as two Roman provinces, Maureta-
nia Caesariensis and Mauretania Tingitana, administered respectively
from Caesarea (mod. Cherchel) and Tingis (mod. Tangiers).

The war against Aedemon may have been the spark to set off the
Musulami once again, since we know that the future emperor Galba was
appointed governor of Africa extra ordinem for two years in about A.D. 45
to deal with unrest in Numidia, a task that also took him into Juba’s
former territory of eastern Algeria.* But, as before, we should resist the
temptation to think in terms of unified, African nationalist, resistance
movements and see these as endemic but discrete outbreaks.

One way of checking such outbreaks was by extending Romanization
through colonial foundations of Roman veterans and individual grants
of citizenship, for which Claudius was celebrated.*5 Tingis was
refounded, Lixus was raised to colonial status and probably, though not
necessarily, reinforced. A new veteran settlement was located at Oppi-
dum Novum to protect Caesarea inland, while Tipasa and Rusucurru on
the coast were granted municipal status with Latin rights. Caesarea itself

31 AE 1966, 595; Tac. Hist. 11.58-9.

32 praef(ectus) auxilior(um) adversus Aedemonem oppressum bello— GCN 407. Whether municipal
status is implied by the grant of civitas romana is controversial; for this and for possible federated
status of Volubilis, Gascou 1982 (E 738) 148-9.

33 Romanelli 1959 (E 760) 260; cf. Dio Lx.24.5. Dio Lx.8-9; Pliny, HN v.11-15.

% Aur. Vict. 4.2; Suet. Galba 7-8; cf. Tac. Hist. 1.49; Dio Lx.9.6; Plut. Galba 3; AE 1966, 595. The
history of ‘national consciousness’ and ‘permanent insurrection’ in Roman Africa is discussed by
Benseddik 1982 (E 716) 145-62. 35 Gascou 1982 (E 738) 145-38, Mackie 1983 (E 753).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GAIUS TO NERO $99

was given colonial status, though again this does not imply new settlers.
Volubilis, as we saw, did well out of its loyalty.

Why the two Mauretanias were administered by equestrian procura-
torial governors is not easy to say, particularly since senatorial legates
were appointed from time to time (e.g. in A.D. 75 and 144) and
procurators occasionally held command over a united territory pro /egato.
Was it simply because no legion was stationed in the provinces? Was it
because Claudius saw himself as in some sense the heir of Ptolemy (on the
analogy of Egypt)? Or was it because the territory was too wild to regard
as a settled province (like the Alpine territories)? It is certainly true that
the provinces were never much developed, their southern frontiers were
hard to define and communications between the two were tenuous.*

Nero’s contribution to the history of Africa lay, as far as we know, ina
single action — the confiscation of a large amount of property in central
Tunisia. With colourful exaggeration the Elder Pliny says that six
owners had possessed half Africa before their execution by Nero. Some
relics of this brutal change may be conserved on inscriptions of the
second century A.D. from the middle Bagradas valley, where an estate
named saltus Neronianus is recorded in the vicinity of other estates
bearing the names of old Roman families, saltus Lamianus, saltus
Blandianus, saltus Domitianus>” There is no reason to suppose these
imperial confiscations were linked to some policy by Nero to increase the
supply of grain to the citizens of Rome, as some have argued (see below,
p- 616).

Cruel execution of Africans, perhaps on behalf of Nero, was a
reputation gained by Nero’s last legionary legate in a.p. 68, L. Clodius
Macer. Once the secret was out that an emperor could be created outside
Rome, he developed imperial ambitions of his own having apparently
already taken over as governor. In the rivalries which developed on
Nero’s death he tried to manipulate the grain supply to Rome for his own
advantage, urged on by one of Nero’s court friends.38 But he was
assassinated on Galba’s orders and, after Galba himself fell, the province
became a prey to the rival supporters of Vitellius and Vespasian. Oddly
enough three of the contenders, Galba, Vitellius and Vespasian, had
served in the province, the last being the least popular. But, thanks to the
independent power of the legionary commander of Africa, Valerius
Festus, who favoured Vespasian, the proconsul, L. Calpurnius Piso, was
killed — an act for which Festus received his due reward.>9 It was said that

3% See the discussions by J. Marion and M. Euzennat in Bud/. Arch. Maroc. 4 (1960) 442-7, §25—7-

Pliny, HN xvut.35. NTH 463 and 464 are translated and discussed by Kehoe 1988 (E 746);
Carcopino 1906 (z 723). The best text is Flach 1978 (£ 734).

38 Plut. Galba 6; cf. Tac. Hist.1.11. Suet. Galba 11; Tac. Hist.1.73. J. Burian, Kéio 38 (1960) 167-73
implausibly considers that Macer made common cause with senatorial sympathizers.

% Tac. Hist. rv.38, 48-50; MW 266 (showing military decorations and career under the Flavians).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Goo 134. ROMAN AFRICA

Piso, like Macer before him, had been tampering with the corn supply
for Rome.

In Mauretania Galba during his brief rule had given the governor of
Caesariensis, Lucceius Albinus, command also over Tingitana — perhaps
to counter the influence of Macer. Having gathered a large force of
12,000 auxiliaries together, Albinus declared his independence after
Galba’s fall and prepared to invade Spain. Assassination, however, by
friends of Vitellius ended his claim.

By the time the civil wars were over Roman rule in Africa was in need
of reorganization. Rival sides had offered too many tax concessions.
Cities in Africa had used the wars to pursue their own vendettas, like Oca
which had called in the Garamantes against Lepcis. The tension between
the legionary legate and the proconsular governor had to be resolved.
And we may guess that the Mauri and Numidian tribes of the interior
had not remained inactive, making it a necessity to increase the security
of the frontiers. Above all, the importance of protecting and encourag-
ing the production of African grain and, increasingly now, oil was
underlined. That was all work for the new Flavian administration.

VI. THE ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION
OF THE PROVINCE

Whatever Caesar intended, there is little trace of his actual achievement.
The province of Nova was, of course, his creation, running probably
from the old fossa regia — the. republican boundaries taken over from the
Numidian kings — westwards. But whether he incorporated the enclave
of Sittiani around Cirta is unclear. Octavian immediately saw the
undesirability of having two provinces of Africa, particularly if he
wanted the new colony of Carthage to include the Gaetulian veteran
settlements beyond the fossa regia. There is just a hint in Dio that
Augustus began by giving Juba II the territory of Nova which had
formerly been ruled by his father, Juba I. But given the importance of
the corn of Africa, the idea seems implausible.

The single province of Africa Proconsularis was therefore formed in
35 B.C., as argued earlier, to incorporate all the former territories,
including that around Cirta. The only legion we know to have been
permanently stationed in the province was the III Augusta, not in fact
recorded until A.p. 14, but obviously present earlier and stationed
perhaps first at Carthage before moving to Ammaedara. There was
almost certainly also a fair number of auxiliaries recruited locally, a
normal obligation laid upon native communities in this period. But how
many outside or local auxiliary units there were at this stage one can only

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ADMINISTRATION 6o1

guess. At Ammaedara we have a pre-Flavian stela recording a cobors XV
Voluntariorum, without doubt Roman citizen irregulars; the ala Siliana is
also recorded as serving in Africa.*1 Both were probably recruited
locally.

The problem of the relationship of the provincial governor to the
army and the relationship of both province and army to Augustus
himself is perhaps something that concerns us more than it did
Augustus. Although Africa became technically a public province in the
settlement of 27 B.c., the emperor’s grip was always firmly on the army,
where he could — and sometimes did — nominate the legionary legate,
despite the theoretical right of the governor to appoint his own legates.
Furthermore, the emperor could always manipulate‘appointments of
governors when there was occasion for important military campaigns.
Tiberius had no difficulty in ‘persuading’ the Senate of the wisdom of
appointing Iunius Blaesus to the post for the campaign in a.p. 18.42
Galba was appointed extra sortem when the need arose under Claudius.
So the arrangement remained basically ad hoc, even after Gaius ended the
anomaly of a legionary commander who was subordinate to the
governor, while selected by the emperor.

It is impossible to talk about precise boundaries under Augustus when
the territory was in the process of being defined. Some fifty years after
Augustus’ death the Elder Pliny preserved in his description of the
Maghreb coast two undated and different lists of the colonies and towns,
which have been thought to have had their origin in the early formulae
provinciae.*> But this seems unlikely. Part of the lists must go back to
Iulius Caesar, since there is a reference to the two separate provinces of
Vetus and Nova. Other parts are updated to include colonies founded by
Augustus or Claudius. Many of the towns are not listed in any strict
juridical or tax category but only vaguely in non-technical language as
oppida. To reconstruct the Augustan settlement from this is a more or
less hopeless task. But Pliny’s list does provide some clues.

For the taxes of the province we have only the guidance of the few
inscriptions already mentioned recording the new land cadaster in the
south. In the northern part of the province there are quite extensive signs
of cadastration and centuriation along the lines of the republican
orientation, which may have been the work of Augustan governors in
distributing lots to new settlers, since the cadaster extends well beyond
the fossa regia. Between the two cadasters is a third major orientation and

41 Legion — EJ?290 (a.p. 14); CIL vit 22786; auxiliaries — CIL vinr 23252, 23255, 25646; AE
1972, 969; Tac. Hist. 1.70. It is impossible to calculate the numbers in this early period; But see
Cagnat 1913 (£ 722) 107-10, 140ff; Holder 1980 (D 195) 289, 330.

42 Blaesus— Tac. Ann. 111.32, 35. The relationship between the governor and the legate is laid out

in Dio u11.14.7 and Tac. Hist. v.48 and discussed by Bénabou 1972 (£ 714).
® Pliny, NH v.1-30. Discussed by Teutsch 1962 (E 765), Brunt 1971 (a 9) App. 13-

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

602 137, ROMAN AFRICA

a few smaller ones in the coastal regions of Byzacium which could be the
work of early emperors.“

But cadasters do not tell us much about how the tax was collected or
assessed. Most probably in the Julio-Claudian period, at least, there was
a continuation of the republican system, since some of the evidence
suggests that the taxation units and the agents of the pre-imperial period
persisted. In other words, the mixed system established by the Agrarian
Law of 111 B.c. was maintained, whereby a fixed sum (stipendium) was
imposed on native communities or those with movable property and a
tithe (decuma) on Roman purchasers of former public land. This was in
addition to the pasture tax on animals. In the absence of other evidence
we must assume that new Roman settlers were treated like those already
there, unless they were veterans. The latter were granted tax immunities
by Augustus for their own lifetime and that of their children, according
to a papyrus copy of his edict in 31 B.c. But it is possible that the
Gaetulian veterans of Iulius Caesar had been given some form of tribute
immunity for their heirs in perpetuity.45

If this is correct, taxes would have been farmed out from the
quaestor’s office to publican entrepreneurs, who bid for the contracts
based upon block assessments of the native civitates stipendiariae. It is
unfortunate that the only real evidence of such an arrangement — a
dedication by the mancupes of the stipendiarii to the quaestor — cannot be
dated, although it is probably Augustan. The civitates, however, do not
seem, as later, to be independent tax communities but more like villages
grouped together into rural districts, as they had been under Punic
Carthage. In fact, we have Roman inscriptions referring to these old
Punic land divisions — called in Latin pagi. One such records the sixty-
four civitates of the pagus of Tuscus and Gunzuzus, recalling Appian’s
description of the Punic ‘land of Tusca’ with its fifty towns. We also have
an inscription dating from soon after the refounding of Roman Carthage
mentioning an administrative district of eighty-three caste//a under a law
officer of Carthage, M. Caelius Phileros, who was responsible for
allocating their taxes quinquennially.*

As Roman rule extended southwards, the military districts were

“ Chevallier 1958 ( 724) and Aflas des centuriations romaines de Tunisie (Paris, 1954). Dilke 1971 (A
21) 151-8.

45 Republican taxes are discussed in CAH 1x? 585-9. Augustan edict on veterans ~ EJ? 302.
Gaetulians — discussed below, p. 608.

4 mancupes — EJ? 191. civitates stipendiariae etc., - AE 1963, 96; App. Pun. 68; cf. ILS 9482
recording pagi Muxsi, Gususi et Zeugei.EJ? 355 refers to civitates stipendiariae in a pagus which seems to
be called Gurzenses and it contains the names of three places, one of which is Uzita known by Julius
Caesar as an oppidum near Hadrumetum (BAfr. 41) while Gurza wasa civitas later in the same locality.
CIL vint 23$99 records a prefect of sixty-cwo civitates at Mactar ina later period. All are discussed by
Picard 1966 (E 758). Phileros — EJ? 330; he had served the governor T. Sextius ¢. 43—40 B.C.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CITIES AND COLONIES 603

possibly regionalized in the same way, since an inscription commemor-
ates the census of forty-three civitates taken by a tribune of the III legion
(p. $93). We also know of the existence of an imperial procurator in the
‘plain of Byzacium’ under Augustus, perhaps a military supply officer or
an agent of imperial estates. None of this, however, is much to go on.

VII. CITIES AND COLONIES*

It is a banality that the Roman empire was fundamentally no more thana
collection of city-states, around which the emperor provided a protect-
ing frontier that was paid for by their taxes. The city or civitas, therefore,
was the administrative unit upon which the empire depended. The
problem for the Romans in Africa, different from other western
provinces, was not to persuade scattered, rural communities to collecti-
vize into city units, as in northern Gaul and Britain, so much as to find a
formula that would organize the scores of small, independent villages
and hill-top forts that already existed into manageable communities.
Despite the Carthaginian coastal cities and a few native centres (like
Thugga), one hundred years of Roman republican rule had done little to
advance this process.

What changed all that was the civil wars and the Principate. The wars
created a desperate need to demobilize and provided the land on which
to settle veterans. Augustus possessed the will to order such events and
the self-interest to know that his political survival depended on satisfy-
ing this need and on supplying the volatile population of Rome with
regular food. Colonies, communities and corn were the informing
principles of Roman imperialism in Africa.

Colonies first. Apart from Carthage, Iulius Caesar and Augustus
between them founded some twenty-six to twenty-eight colonies the
length of the Maghreb. They cannot all be assigned with certainty to the
Caesarian and Augustan periods — some may have been founded just
after Augustus’ death.*8 Their names and those about which there is
greater certainty than others, are marked on Map 13. Some of these
settlements obviously had a defensive, military purpose that was usual
when veterans were kept together in their original army units. Soldiers
of the thirteenth legion were established at Thuburbo Minus (mod.
Teboura) and at Uthina (mod. Oudna) as buttresses for Carthage,
controlling the southern and western plains of the Medjerda and Miliana
rivers. In the same way the colonies at Zuchabar (mod. Miliana) and
Aquae (mod. Righa Hammam) protected Caesarea, Juba’s capital, from

41 The evidence is now well collected by Gascou 1972 (E 735) and 1982 (EB 738).

® The complex difficulties are discussed by Teutsch 1962 (E 763). See also Brunt 1971 (A 9) App.
15.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

604 137, ROMAN AFRICA

inland raids in Mauretania. The colonies along the Algerian and
Moroccan coast were useful ports of communication, just as the colonies
along the coast of eastern Tunisia and Cape Bon controlled the former
Punic ports. In former Africa Nova, the Punic town of Sicca Veneria is
the only colony to commemorate Augustus as conditor;49 all the other
colonies of Thuburnica, Simitthu and Assuras may have started life as
military or veteran satellites of Sicca. Ammaedara, the legionary base by
A.D. 14, became a colony under Flavian rule.

After the annexation of the Mauretanias, Claudius continued the
policy of colonial foundation (p. 598), although in many cases it was
more a matter of raising the status of towns rather than actually sending
out new settlers. This is testimony to the Romanization and unofficial
immigration during the rule of Juba and Ptolemy. Oppidum Novum,
which now became a colony of veterans, may have started life as a
garrison of Roman auxiliaries to help Juba, since we hear of a curator of a
fort there.5°

At Iol Caesarea (mod. Cherchel) Juba, in imitation of other hellenistic
rulers, deliberately constructed a show-piece city, laid out on an
orthogonal plan, with a number of monumental buildings.5! Most
important were the temples, including a temple of Augustus, of which a
colossal statue of the emperor survives, showing the deliberate political
intention of bringing urban Roman culture to the Mauri, as well as
organizing the resources of the countryside. The grant of colonial status
did not necessarily involve any new settlement but Italian craftsmen may
have come to produce pottery in the city. The many Roman names
inscribed in the city, almost certainly from the period of Juba, include
some who were probably Italian negotiatores.

As to the numbers of Roman settlers in each colony, best estimates
suggest a figure of about 300 to 500 adult males, giving a total for the
Augustan colonies of some 8,o00~13,000 families. This is not counting
Carthage or Cirta, which are discussed below. But a colony’s territory
was not only occupied by Roman settlers from Italy. The land cadaster
from Arausio in Narbonensis and the manuals of Roman surveyors show
that native inhabitants remained. Some of the elites were given citizen-
ship and formed joint communities, as happened at the veteran colony of
Emerita in Spain.>? Native wives of veterans were granted citizenship,
too, quite apart from the fact that many of Caesar’s and Augustus’
veterans had themselves been local native recruits for the emergency of
the civil wars in both the legions and as Gaetulian auxiliaries.55

9 CIL vu 27568. 30 AE 1926, 23.

51 Gsell 1930 (E 741) 206-84. Recent work is in Leveau 1984 (E 752) and Benseddik, Potter
forthcoming (E 717).

82 Brunt 1971 (a 9) 246-61; Romanelli 1959 (& 760) 207. Grom. agrimens. 155. 6-8 (Lachmann);
Strab. 1.2.15 (15 1¢).

53}. Grants to Octavian’s veterans included citizenship ipsis, parentibus liberisque eorum et uxoribus —
EJ? 302; and probably the right to join in a colony or remain in a native community; cf. FIRA1 55.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CITIES AND COLONIES 605

So we must not overestimate the cultural impact of the new founda-
tions. Colonial status, Roman citizenship and often large plots of land—a
third of a century, 16 hectares was the least an Augustan veteran could
expect — created a privileged minority, loyal to the settlement and
anxious to prove their Romanness. But they were men who were often
linked culturally to the local population by language, religion and
custom. We see how commonly the name of Iulius was taken by new
citizens in a colony like Sicca Veneria — overall about 20 per cent of
recorded names. At another colony, Simitthu, the name Iulius Numidi-
cus (which occurs twice) speaks for itself.54 The oldest inscriptions
record religious homage from the Algerian colony of Rusguniae to the
Mauretanian king, Ptolemy in a.p. 29 and to the African god, Saturn; but
the latter is honoured in his Romanized form and the prominent families
who make the dedications also betray their new Roman status by their
names.55

Carthage was quite different from the military colonies on the coast.
Appian, describing its foundation, says that he had ‘found out that
Augustus gathered togethet some 3,000 Roman colonists and the rest
from those dwelling around (ferioikoi) in the region’. The easiest
interpretation of this statement is that Roman immigrants plus Romans
already in the territory came to a total of 3,000, to which were added
native peregrines. There were certainly some veterans of Caesar included
but the unusually large proportion of freedmen recorded in civil and
religious officies in the early colony suggests that many of the immi-
grants came from the city of Rome. Among country folk, Virgil tells us,
there was no great enthusiasm to go to ‘thirsty’ Africa.%

Archaeology gives us some idea of what the early colony of Carthage
was like.5? The most interesting feature is that, despite the earlier,
different Gracchan cadastration, the city was refounded on the old Punic
Orientation and made much use of Punic foundations, building material
and cisterns that had lain unused or in ruins since 146 B.c. The Punic
citadel on the Byrsa was the central point for the centuriation of the town
and the hill itself began the first stage of its transformation as the
monumental focus for the city. Little remains of the Augustan city but
there are signs that a start was made on the dramatic levelling of the
citadel summit and infilling on top of Hannibal’s city on the south side. It
was on this site that a huge new forum centre was to be created in the

54 Thompson and Ferguson 1969 (£ 767) 132-81; modified by Lassére 1977 (E 749) 1527-3.

55 EJ? 163; CIL vit 9257. Leschi 1957 (E 751) 389-93; Salama 1955 (£ 761).

56 App. Pun. 136; Strab. xvit.3.15 (832—3c); Plut. Caes. 57; Virg. Ec/. 1.64.

57 For asummary and interpretation of the results of the UNESCO project at Carthage, see Hurst
1985 (E 745). Saumagne 1962 (E 762) discovered the centuriation. The latest information and
bibliography on Carthage is published regularly in the bulletin of the Institut National d’ Archéolo-
gie et d’Art de Tunis, CEDAC (Centre d Etudes et de documentation archéologique de la conservation de
Carthage). Before the UNESCO project it was a common view that Virgil’s description of Dido's
city was an accurate guide to the Augustan colony.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

606 137, ROMAN AFRICA

second century. Near here, appropriately, an altar to the gens Augusta was
put up on private ground by one of the first generation of settlers.

The monumental preparation of the Byrsa, however, contrasts with
the tentative and poor buildings of the shore and harbours. Mud brick
and unpaved streets suggest that the early colony was quite a humble
affair which grew only gradually. Some of the Punic ruins were not
rebuilt for two generations and the early Roman cemeteries were inside
what was later part of the city street grid. Virgil’s romantic portrait of
colonists constructing Dido’s first city — the great citadel, the paved
streets, the gates and the theatre — which was probably written to
celebrate the Augustan colony, did not exactly resemble the reality.

The difficult feature of the foundation for us to understand is how the
rural settlements within the territory or pertica of Carthage, which
stretched at least 1ookm down the Bagradas valley, were organized. A
series of inscriptions in the earlier imperial period record communities of
Roman citizens, confusingly called pagi but nothing like the other pagi
districts of native communities (p. 602). These were single enclaves,
many of them bunched together just beyond the old fossa regia boundary
of Africa Vetera in the fertile middle Bagradas and Siliana valleys at
places like Thugga, Uchi Maius and Thibaris.5® They were part of
Carthage, containing citizens and later even magistrates of the colony,
administered by a ‘prefect of justice’ from the city. But at the same time
they were quartered on top of native settlements.

Some of these pagi, like Uchi Maius and Thibaris, but not all, are
recorded by the Elder Pliny as oppida civium Romanorum. The inscription
noted earlier of M. Caelius Phileros,5° who had been a freedman
attendant of the governor before go B.c. and had then joined the new
colony to become aedile, prefect of justice and officer for taxes in charge
of ‘eighty-three castel/a’ (native sites), is matched by another inscription
from Uchi Maius, damaged but probably of Phileros, too, recording his
arbitration between the coloni and the local Uchitani. Not only were the
gentile names Marius and Iulius common in these communities but
several explicitly honoured Marius when they later acquired a municipal
charter.

Pagi are recorded within the old province, too. Two of them,
Saturnuca and Medeli, are not far from the colony of Uthina in the
Miliana plain; both have inscriptions stating they were veteran settle-
ments; and one claims Augustus as benefactor. A similar settlement was
at Hippo Diarrytus (mod. Bizerta) and two others were near Thabraca.
Apart from these pag/, other types of Roman communities appear on

58 Evidence given by Pflaum 1970 (E 755); most recently discussed by Gascou 1980 (E 737).
59 EJ? 330; CIL vin 26274. 9 ILAFr 301; CIL vitt 885; 25423.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CITIES AND COLONIES 607

inscriptions:5! ‘Roman citizens who are in business (negotiantur) at
Thinissut’ on Cape Bon; ‘Roman citizens who are living at (morantur)
Suo’ in the Bagradas plain; ‘a community’ (conventus) of Romans and
Numidians who live at Masculula, west of Sicca Veneria.

Finally, there is the puzzling relationship between Carthage and a
number of sites on the Tunisian coast which eventually became colonies
bearing the title of ‘Iulia’ in their names. The inscription of Phileros,
examined earlier, records his career not only as a magistrate at Carthage
but also twice as chief magistrate (duovir) of Clupea (mod. Kelibia) on
Cape Bon. Clupea is listed by Pliny as a ‘free oppidum’ but it became a
Julian colony. That is also the case at Curubis, Neapolis and Carpi (not
‘free’ in the last case), two of which also had magistrates, freedmen again,
who held office at Carthage.

As far as we can tell, Cirta also, was given a very large territory,
administered by prefects and subdivided into pagi and other communi-
ties where Roman citizens lived attached to the main colony. Augustus is
known to have taken cver the former Sittiani veterans and to have
supplemented them with further colonists in 26 B.c. That, as far as we
can judge, was also the origin of the special relationship of contributio
recorded in the second century a.p., by which three of these sub-
communities had rights of interchanging magistracies with Cirta when
they later became colonies.®

There is some suggestion that this was the earliest form of organiza-
tion at Sicca Veneria, too — the only one of Augustus’ colonies in Africa
Nova to figure in Pliny’s list, antedating the colonies of Thuburnica,
Simitthu and Assuras. Two of these later colonies are called oppida civium
Romanorum by Pliny, so may have begun as pags just as we have records of
pagi and other types of small Roman communities near Sicca. The fact
that some of these pags appear to have been on sites that also contained
castella may mean that an elaborate system of Roman settlements (pagi)
was constructed to supervise native hill-forts. At Cirta, however, the
castella were part of the pagus and look like fortified points of security for
the early colonists.63 Despite this confusion, however, both Cirta and
Sicca look surprisingly like Carthage.

So what can be made of these scraps of information? There is no need
to read into Carthage’s foundation some sort of new, super-hellenistic
model city, since contemporary Augustan colonies with similar exten-
sive territorial pertica are known in France (Arausio) and Spain (Emerita)

61 EJ? 106; IL Tun 682; EJ? 111.

@ ILA (1) 36; AE 1955, 202; ILA 1(1) 3596.

63 The latter is argued by Gascou 1983 (£ 739), against Beschaouch 1981 (£ 719). The Phileros
inscription above (CIL vit 26274) shows him demarcating land of the castel/um at Uchi between the
native Uchitani and the coloni, where there was a Roman pagus. This suggests that a ¢astellum can be
either peregrine, Roman or both.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

608 134, ROMAN AFRICA

— the latter also administered by prefects. Pagi as subdivisions of a city’s
territory were also perfectly normal. But it is difficult to resist the
conclusion that at Carthage, in addition to the new, veteran settlers, most
or all of the pagi beyond the fossa regia were not new settlements at all but
villages of Gaetulian auxiliaries who had been rewarded with land and
perhaps citizenship by Marius and Iulius Caesar and whose families were
now incorporated as citizens of the new colony. Perhaps the same was
the case with the Sittiani at Cirta. As for the coastal Julian colonies, they
may have kept some sort of special relationship with Carthage after they
became colonies in their own right.

In addition to colonies and the oppida civium Romanorum (probably
pagi), Pliny lists other categories of communities within the African
province ~ about which itis difficult to say anything of their organization
or physical appearance. There are a number of oppida libera, some simple
oppida and civitates, one oppidum stipendiarium, one oppidum Latinum and
finally Utica, the former provincial capital, which, Pliny said, had Roman
citizenship — presumably as a recognized municipium Romanum. In other
words, apart from Utica and the single town with Latin rights, all the rest
were what would be juridically classified as peregrine (native) civitates,
towns with their own territories which were self-governing and recog-
nized within the formulae provinciae. We have the record of two of them,
Thysdrus (mod. El Djem) and Hadrumetum (mod. Sousse) in a land
dispute about the middle of the first century a.p. Some of them, former
royal strongholds of the kings of Numidia, such as Zama Regia, Hippo
Regius, Bulla Regia, were probably the creations of Caesar in his new
province of Africa Nova. Others along the Tunisian and Tripolitanian
coast had a long Punic and republican history of urbanization.“

We can only guess whether Pliny’s list was complete or what exactly
the differences were between his categories. Lepcis Magna, for instance,
the rich Punic centre of olive oil export, was only called an oppidum, while
its rival Oea was called a civitas. Was Lepcis disgraced for opposing
Caesar? If so, it was rehabilitated by Augustus, since it had the right of a
‘free town’ to strike its own coins and there began to appear a number of
spectacular, public Roman-styled buildings as early as 8 B.c. But for
Thugga, which had been a royal capital of Massinissa and where a pagus
of Roman citizens was installed, Pliny gives no evidence of civitas status,
which is not recorded before Claudius. Yet Thugga almost certainly was
recognized before that, since we hear of the Thuggenses commemorat-
ing a governor in A.D. 3. The same is probably true of Musti nearby.®

For Pliny’s list, see n. 43; Utica — Dio xitx.16.1; Thysdrus — Grom. agrimens. 57.3 (Lachmann);
Caesar — BAfr. 77.1, 97-1.

65 Building at Lepcis — e.g. EJ? rosb (9-8 B.c.). Thugga — ILS 6797, CIL vit 26580. Poinssot
1958 (E 759), Beschaouch 1968 (e 718) 151.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CITIES AND COLONIES 609

Puzzlingly, on some early inscriptions we find small villages being called
civitates when they were clearly not recognized communities. So the
confusion is considerable.

Many of these small village communities were strongly Punicized and
continued with their own Punic magistrate, called sufet (pl. sufetim), long
into the Empire without any evidence, in some cases, that they were ever
recognized as independent cities by the Julio-Claudian emperors. There
was a number of them just west of, and possibly including, the later
colony of Thuburbo Maius, in the rich Miliana valley 50km south of
Carthage. The interesting suggestion has been made that these were the
original inhabitants of Carthage, exiled when the city was destroyed
in1 46 B.c. Ifso, they were appropriately incorporated once again into the
great pertica of Carthage, though only as peregrines. Another group of
communities, many of them near the s#fet villages, possessed governing
councils called in later periods undecimprimi which may also have had
Punic origins.67 We may guess that life in these villages or small towns
was much as it had been when Punic Carthage collapsed over one
hundred years earlier.

We must not forget the southern territories of Tunisia, the land
brought under Roman control by Augustus and Tiberius south east of
the legionary base of Ammaedara. Pliny describes some of the communi-
ties as ‘not so much civitates as nationes’. In other words, tribes like the
Musulami, Capsitani and Cinithii, were recognized but not as urban
units, despite the fact that some of the leading families among groups
like the Cinithii had been strongly Punicized and quickly accepted
Roman urban structures, too. But until their centres of Gigthis (mod.
Bou Grara), Tacape (mod. Gabes) etc. were given recognized status,
they were probably put under the control of a military prefect. One such
person, C. Flavius Macer, prefect of the Musulami in the later first
century or early second century may himself have been a native leader,
who became an officer of the auxiliaries and was given citizenship by the
Flavian emperors.

It is thought, too, that many of the later towns on the edge of the
Tunisian dorsal, places like Cilma (mod. Djilma), Sufetula (mod.
Sbeitla), Cillium (mod. Kasserine) and Thelepte, became Romanized
through soldiers or veteran stationed there to control the routes in this
period. That was certainly true of Thala, the former Numidian strong-
hold near Ammaedara, according to Tacitus, and perhaps of the oasis

% CIL 111 338.

67 Discussion of Punic sufet towns by C. Poinssot, Karthago 10 (199-60) 93-131. The Punic
origin of undecimprimi is discussed by B.D. Shaw, Museum Africum 2 (1973) 1-10 — but this is
controversial.

68 Macer — IL Algt 285, NTH 260; cf. Phaum CP no. 98. Gigthis had long been a Punic port and
centre ~ N. Ferchiou in Picard 1984 (E 758A) 65-74.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GIo 13# ROMAN AFRICA

centre of the Capsitani at Capsa (mod. Gafsa), which had also been
Punicized.®

Further west in Mauretania, in addition to the colonies, Claudius
granted a limited number of municipal rights and recognized a few
communities as civitates, mainly places along the coast which had a Punic
background. Tipasa, for instance, became a Latin town, Rusucurru
(mod. Dellys) became a Roman town. Volubilis was rewarded for its
loyalty by getting Roman municipal status and Tucca (mod. Zucca) on
the border of the African province became a civifas. But not very much
seems to have been done to develop the interior before the Flavian
emperors.

VIII. ROMANIZATION AND RESISTANCE

Two conclusions follow from these administrative arrangements for the
provinces of north Africa. First, since the number of new Italian
immigrants was relatively small, their impact was less dramatic than has
sometimes been supposed. Secondly, the local African elites, including
those who were incorporated in the colonies, many of whom had long
been Punicized, were those most readily integrated into the urban
system. Both these conclusions contribute to our understanding of the
process of Romanization.

The precise juridical status of a community made little difference to
the realities of life in the small caste//a and vici of the countryside, which
continued to be administered by their own principes, magistri and seniores
and which still thought of themselves in terms of their own sub-groups
(domus and familiae) and tribal alliances (genes). In many parts of Africa
these categories persisted until the late Empire. Pomponius Mela, a
geographer in the middle of the first century a.p., wrote of African
society as made up of nomadic wanderers and the rural masses (valgus),
still living in their huts (mapalia) under their own leaders. We have a
good collection of Libyan funerary inscriptions from a region of eastern
Algeria around Hippo Regius (mod. Annaba), which date in some cases
from the Roman period, since they are bilingual. They show that, even in
the case of a man with as Romanized a name as C. Iulius Gaetulus, who
looks like a veteran, he was also a chief of the Misiciri group and lived in
a traditional, Libyan-speaking community.”

Many of these Libyans simply continued to be peasants working on
the lands of their former chiefs. Iulius Caesar had allowed his friend, C.

6 Cillium — CIL vit 211-16; Thala — Tac. Ann. 111.21. Broughton 1968 (E 720) 95; Gascou 1972

(E 735) 39.
7 Mela, 1.42. Julius Gaetulus — R. Chabot, Reeueils des inscriptions libyques, no. 146. See Whittaker

1978 (E 770) esp. 341-4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMANIZATION G11

Iulius Massinissa, to keep land that probably belonged to his royal
ancestor. In the pagus of Abuzza, near Sicca Veneria, an inscription
commemorates a woman, Maria Plancina, who is called ‘foremost of all
Numidian women, descended from a royal family’, whose daughter
married a large landowner, Licinius Fortunatus. Around Sicca especially
we have a number of inscriptions of later periods showing that castella
under their own seniores continued to function.”! So, one wonders what
difference the peasants working on these lands would have noticed when
the owners adopted their Roman names. The continuity of dependent
relations between the rich and poor Libyans must explain why there is so
little evidence of Roman-style imported slavery on the land.

On the other hand the history of two former Numidian royal towns,
Bulla Regia and Thugga, shows how quickly native towns adopted
Roman styles of building and culture.’ Bulla, recognized as a ‘free town’
in the Augustan province, contained many Romanized families bearing
the name of Iulius, including some of the most prominent, that go back
to the earliest period. Fairly soon we see the Roman reticulated
technique being used for a public building in the centre, showing how
urbanization was fostered by Roman rule.

Thugga, which had probably been Massinissa’s capital in the second
century B.c. and had long ago acquired administrative institutions, much
influenced by Punic culture, plus a number of monumental buildings,
was now increased by a Roman pagus. The enclave adjoined the old
native town and a Roman type of town centre with forum and market
began to be laid out in this early period. But the rapid Romanization of
the civitas was partly due to the domination of two prominent Numidian
families, the Gabinii and the Iulli, who had probably been given
citizenship by Caesar or Augustus and prided themselves on it. An
inscription dating from A.D. 48 records the dedication by the patron of
the pagus, a citizen of Carthage, of a temple which had been paid for by
the local magistrate, Iulius Venustus, husband of Gabinia Felicula;
Venustus had served as famen of the Roman imperial cult, like his father,
Faustus Thinoba, before him — for which both had been given the
honorary Punic title of sufet.”3

The double communities of pagi and civitates, therefore, speeded up
the Romanization of the African elites. The exact constitutional relation-
ship between the two groups became complex as time went on, since
Roman citizens of the native town sometimes married Romans of the
pagus and acquired land there. On some inscriptions the words straque

71 Massinissa — Vitc. De Arch. viii.3.24-5; Maria Plancina —- IL Twn 1633; CIL vim 16159. See
Broughton 1968 (g£ 720) 187 for castella inscriptions of Sicca.

7 Bulla — Thebert 1973 (£ 766); Thugga — Poinssot 1958 (£ 759).

73 ILS 6797; referred to again below.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

612 134. ROMAN AFRICA

pars civitatis or uterque ordo give the impression that the two formed a
single civic community, even though the pagus continued to exist as a
territorial offshoot of Carthage.” The reason why the two did not
coalesce is clear. Holding land in the pagus was a jealously guarded
privilege, which carried with it the economic advantage of tax immunity
granted to the original members. On an inscription of the second century
A.D. a man significantly called Marius Faustinus (a Marian veteran
family?) at Thugga proudly calls himself ‘defender of the immunity of
the pertica of the Carthaginians’ after a mission to have this immunity
confirmed. Apparently, unlike later, Augustus or Caesar had granted
these settlers (perhaps limited to descendants of the Gaetulian veterans)
tax freedom for their heirs in perpetuity.’5 If this interpretation is
correct, such a valuable asset would have widened the economic gap
between Roman colonists and most natives.

The social and political benefits of the Augustan system for the elite
had already become apparent in the Julio-Claudian period. Under
Tiberius a citizen of Musti, L. Iulius Crassus, reached equestrian status
and under Vespasian the first known African consuls, Q. Aurelius
Pactumeius Fronto of Cirta and his brother Clemens, were created.’ All
may have been Italian émigrés, but Iulius Crassus looks like an enfran-
chised Libyan. The patronage of high Roman officials, such as the
governor, was a valuable asset that encouraged native elites to imitate
Roman institutions, as we see when the people of Thugga commemor-
ated their ‘friendship’ with the governor in A.D. 3.

Lower down the scale, too, the patronage of Roman officials must
have encouraged Romanization. As early as 12 B.c. we have an
inscription set up by ‘the senate and people of the civitates stipendiariae in
the pagus (of) the Gurzenses’ to record their formal c/iente/a links with the
ex-proconsul, P. Sulpicius Quirinius. One cannot miss the obvious
attempt of these villagers who lived in the region of Hadrumetum on the
Tunisian coast to prove their Romanness by their high-sounding
institution and it contrasts starkly with the names of the men com-
missioned to set up the inscription, and with the native oppida from
which they came, Ammilcar of Cynsyne, Boncar of Aethogursa, and
Muthunbal of Uzita. A similar inscription records a former officer of the
III Augustan legion living at Brixia (mod. Breschia) in north Italy, who
had hospitium relations with four tiny African communities in the Miliana
valley.7

The service of Africans in the auxiliaries, whether in ethnic units like

™ Thugga — CIL vin 26591, 26615; Thignica — CIL vit 15212.
13 NTH 3510; for veterans, see n. 53.
7% Julius Crassus — CIL virt 15519 and 26475; [L Tan 1393. Cirtan senators —- MW 298; ILA nt

(1) 642.
7 Two of the inscriptions are recorded in EJ? 354-5; for the set, see CIL v 4919-22.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMANIZATION 613

the cohors Musulamiorum that were recruited quite early on, or in mixed
units, was another way in which Roman ideas were transmitted. In a.p.
69 ‘a large number’ of Mauri were serving in the twenty-four units of
Albinus, although we have no details.78 Gaetulians and their influence
within the pagi have been mentioned several times. But the revolt of
Tacfarinas, who had served in the Roman war should warn us not to
exaggerate the effect of such indoctrination.

The fact is that the pre-Roman culture of Africa, including the strong
Punic and hellenistic elements, inevitably remained embedded in the
make-up of the new provincial society, not just at the level of the poor
but of the rich, too. The Thugga inscription noted above records a man
who was priest of divine Augustus but also honorary ss#fet. At Volubilis
in Morocco, the local dignitary, M. Valerius, son of Bostar, had probably
become a Roman citizen, as were many others in the town, before it was
incorporated into a province; as such, he held the office of sufet originally
and became the first duovir and flamen when the town became a municipium
(see p. 598). At Lepcis Magna, which had been an important Punic port,
an inscription was put in Latin to commemorate the market built by
Annobal Tapapius Rufus, son of Himilcho, one of the leading families of
the town. He also held the office of safet and added to the Latin
inscription another one in Neo-Punic.

The emperor-cult, as we can see from these examples, was a vehicle by
which local aristocracies demonstrated their Romanness and should not
be regarded as insincere flattery or impositions by the state authorities.
At Carthage, for instance, the altar of the gens Axgusta was explicitly on
private land. Elsewhere the dedications look like isolated enclaves of
Roman citizens asserting their identity in predominantly Libyan towns —
at places like Thinissut, Thysdrus or Vaga. Soon civitates themselves
took the initiative, as at Mactar, to set up a temple as part of their civic
cult. At Lepcis Magna the imperial cult went together with the
monumental transformation of the Punic town into a Roman city;
statues of the imperial family were set up in the temple of the new forum
and the rich elite who paid for the great new theatre and markets — men
with names like Iddibal Tapapius, son of Mago — were also those who
took on the priesthoods of the cult.79

There has been much debate about the survival and continuity of
African and Punic political organizations within the Roman provincial
towns. Apart from the s#fe¢ magistrates, who are found in every part of
north Africa where Phoenician settlers had preceded the Romans, the

7 Tac. Hist. 1.38-9. cf. Benseddik 1982 (E 716).

79 Early imperial cult inscriptions — IL Afr 306; EJ? 106; some may be only honouring Augustus
— 14392, 22844; city cule — IRT 273; EJ? 105b; IRT 321-3. See Smadja 1978 (E 763).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

614 137, ROMAN AFRICA

Thugga inscription above also refers to a decree voted by ‘all the gates’
(omnium portarum sententiis) of the town. Whether this organization was
the same as the Punic mizrah — brotherhood with religious affiliations —
which persisted into Roman times at Mactar and Althiburos on the
Tunisian high plain, or whether it was an exclusively Libyan council
meeting hardly matters since pre-Roman African life was already a
cultural fusion.

Similarly, the popularity of Afro-Punic cults in Roman Africa shows
how a new amalgam of provincial culture was emerging.®! The pre-
Roman cult of the Cereres corn gods became one of the most prestigious
in Roman Carthage, its priesthoods dating back to beyond the formal
foundation of the colony itself. The cult of the earth goddess Tellus,
which was probably practised near the altar of the gens Augusta on the
Byrsa, where her statue was found, was elsewhere assimilated with the
local African divinity Gilva. The Libyan bull-god Gurzil (compare the
name Gurzenses, above) was used as a motif on a Roman lamp in first-
century Carthage. And we have already seen how the Saturn cult, a
Romano-African version of the important Afro-Punic cult of Ba’al, was
popular with the earliest Romanized African elites in the colony of
Rusguniae. Above all, the Punic moon-goddess Tanit never ceased to be
venerated in Roman Carthage in her Romanized form as Dea Caelestis.
The child sacrifice associated with this cult was carried out ‘openly’,
according to the African, Christian writer Tertullian, until ‘the procon-
sulship of Tiberius’ — presumably he meant the emperor Tiberius — and it
is clear that thereafter it continued clandestinely.

Whether examples like this represent a form of passive resistance to
Rome or the steady progress of Romanization is to some extent a matter
of semantics.82 Advocates of the ‘resistance’ model regard Romanization
like a layer of paint which was easily stripped off later when Roman rule
deteriorated to reveal the true Africa lurking below the surface. Modern
studies of acculturation, however, demonstrate not only how compatibi-
lity varies enormously according to the social class and the isolation of
individuals, but how even in indigenous resistance movements (cargo
cults and the like) the language is not so much that of the old culture
surviving beneath a veneer as that of a new vocabulary which emerges
from the fusion of two civilizations, preserving elements of both.
Romanization and resistance were two sides of the same coin.

In the Julio-Claudian period there was still an active, physical
resistance among the southern, semi-nomadic populations and the
montagnards of central Algeria and Morocco which spilled over from time

81 Le Glay 1966 (E 750), esp. 62-80; Picard 1954 (E 757) 21-27. The evidence is summarized by
Bénabou 1976 (BE 715).
82 ‘Resistance’ is the theme of Bénabou 1976 (E 715).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE ECONOMY 615

to time even into the heart of the old province. We may assume that some
Libyan leaders bitterly resented Roman rule because of its interference in
their own power and that many Libyan poor were virtually untouched
by it. This continued in remoter communities until the last days of
Roman rule. But the success of Roman provincial rule lay in its capacity
to capture the allegiance of the African elites by its /aissez-faire attitude to
administration and local autonomy, while providing financial and social
rewards to those who were prepared to participate in the system. Urban
government under Roman rule was by and for the rich, reinforcing
social inequalities and leaving social relations with the rural poor much
as they had always been.

IX. THE ECONOMY

It is not easy to judge how much the economy -— and especially rural
production — changed during this period. Presumably the trends already
in motion under the Republic continued. Not surprisingly most of the
information from the late Punic and republican periods relates to the
production of grain, which is also the subject of dominant interest in the
early Empire. The extraordinary productivity of the soil of Africa, and
notably that of Byzacium — the south-eastern coastal region of Proconsu-
laris — was a byword in Rome. But the notion, derived from the Elder
Pliny, that Africa was entirely dedicated to the crops of Ceres is a
misreading of the text and explicitly contradicted by the many references
we have to oil, wine and garden produce.® Archaeology is increasingly
confirming the importance of oil production and its continuity with the
Punic tradition, particularly in the region of Tripolitania and, probably,
of Byzacium. This also fits the evidence of the Punic period, when the
hinterland of Carthage and Cape Bon were noted for mixed farming, and
from where, we may suppose, Mago derived the experience for his
famous treaty on estate management which enjoyed such respect in
Rome in the first century a.p.%

The popularity of Mago’s treatise suggests the influence of Punic
farming methods on early Roman settlers. And that in turn indicates the
principal development of this period — the growth of large estates and
villas of the sort encountered by Iulius Caesar on the Byzacium coast.
Sale of land under the Republic, plus the allocation or sale of confiscated
land after the civil wars, must have accelerated the process which led the
Elder Pliny to report that before Nero’s confiscations half Africa was

3 Productivity —e¢.g. Varro, Rust. 1.14.2, Pliny, HN xvmt.94—5, Columella, Rust. 1.pr.24. Ceres —
‘Cereri totum id natura concessit, oleum ac vinum non invidit tantum’, Pliny, HN xv.8, but tantum
means ‘almost’; contra, Columella, Rust. x1.2.80, Plut. Caes. 55.

% Archaeology, van der Werff 1977/8 (£ 769), Aranegui and Hesnard forthcoming (z 713). Mago
— Heurgon 1976 (E 744).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

616 137, ROMAN AFRICA

owned by six landlords. Whatever the exaggeration, it was to Africa that
imperial writers regularly turned to illustrate a land of large estates.
Petronius imagined Trimalchio and his guest as owners of vast proper-
ties in Numidia and Africa, while Seneca moralizes about the thousands
of tenant coloni working for single landlords in Africa.85 The emperor
himself, of course, was one such estate owner. It was an imperial.
procurator who brought to Augustus and to Nero prolific ears of corn to
demonstrate the fertility of the soil; and the first slave-bailiff of an
imperial estate is recorded in the region of Calama (mod. Guelma) in
Nero’s reign.

Many of these property owners were, like the emperor, absentees and
it is not evident how their estates were organized in terms of labour or
produce. Petronius talks of an army of slaves and Seneca of tenant
farmers. The latter were certainly more common in later periods and
there are a priori reasons, given earlier, for thinking this was always the
more usual type of farm worker. But in neither case is there any real
reason to believe that the growth of large estates radically altered — let
alone ruined, as Pliny says — African farming methods or productivity.
What it did was to change the social balance, by concentrating wealth in
the hands of a minority and by providing them with the means to pay for
the growing number of expensive, public buildings in towns such as
Thugga, Lepcis Magna or Carthage, which have been noted already.
That is, of course, when the profits did not leave Africa to pay for the
expenses of the aristocracy and emperor in Rome. By expanding
southwards and westwards the Roman—African economy was reaching a
point where it was about to become a major supplier of the empire as well
as of Rome.

X. ROMAN IMPERIALISM

The Roman conquest of the Maghreb in the first century a.p. began as
the by-product of civil war and ended up with the acquisition of new
territories as African chiefs and princes were swept up in the turmoil.
Octavian’s defeat of Antony led directly to the southern ‘Gaetulian’
problem, drawing Roman arms as far as the pre-desert. The allied
Mauretanian kingdoms of the west were an unstable solution to this
involvement which eventually broke down under Claudius and led to
the annexation of two more provinces.

The question is, did the Roman emperors have a coherent policy of
imperialism that went deeper than this kind of reflex reaction to

85 Caes. BAfr. 40, 65. Confiscations — e.g. Caes. BAfr. 97. Pliny, HN xvit.35. Petron. Sat.
48,117. Sen. Ep. ad. Lucil. 114.26.
8% Pliny, HN xviit.95; ILAlgt 324.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMAN IMPERIALISM 617

emergencies? Even in the republican period, when Africa was relatively
neglected, we can see that the territory was regarded as a source of
private wealth in land and of public food and oil. The climax was
Caesar’s public announcement of the acquisition for the Roman people
of 8,000 tonnes of grain and 1 million litres of oil from the new province
he had acquired, ‘in order to impress the people with the size of his
victory’.8”

That tradition of public patronage was continued by Augustus who
boasted in 23 B.C., for instance, that he had made a grant of one year’s
ration of corn to 1 million Romans, as well as claiming to have saved the
city on various occasions from corn shortages. The emperor was fully
aware of the ‘fear and danger’ which could lead to city riots if supplies
broke down. In a.p. 51 the emperor Claudius came uncomfortably close
to being lynched when it was correctly rumoured that the warehouses of
Rome were almost empty.®8

Given this background of propaganda and need, it would have been
surprising if the corn of Africa had not figured somewhere when
emperors pondered the prudence of military campaigns, even if our
sources do not specifically link it to southern conquest. Can it be only
chance that the raids of Tacfarinas deep into the African province and the
consequent wars between A.D. 19-24 coincided with a sharp rise in the
price of corn in A.p. 19, which remained high until about a.p. 23 or 24?
Tacitus himself was in no doubt about Rome’s dependence on Africa
(and Egypt) for her livelihood nor about the strategic importance of
African grain in the civil wars.89 All Rome knew the value of Africa.

The central importance of African and Egyptian corn in supplying
Rome is confirmed by two much discussed ancient texts. The first,
referring to Nero’s reign, states that Africa maintained the people of
Rome for eight months of the year and Egypt for four; the second that
Egypt in Augustus’ rule provided 20,000,000 modi (about 130,000
tonnes) of grain for Rome. Unfortunately, there is no basis here for a
simple mathematical calculation, since a regular annual import of about
40 million modii of grain would have far exceeded any calculable
consumption rate of Rome’s population, even if this were the only
source of supply. Nor does the need to increase the annona supply or
imperial largesse provide a plausible reason for Nero’s confiscations of
senatorial estates in Africa, since it falsely assumes that productivity

® Augustus, RG 5, 15.1; Dio Lv.26.1 — 27.5. Tac. Ann. x11.43; cf. Sen. De Brev. Vit. 18. Claudius
~ Suet. Claud. 18.2.

® Tac. Ann. 11.87, 1v.6, x11.43; Hist. 1.73, 111.48, 1V.38.

%®© Joseph. BJ 11.383; (Aur. Vict.] Epit. de Caes. 1.6; Haywood 1959 (E 743) 43; Picard 1956 (E 756);
Lassére 1977 (E 749) 296. Garnsey 1983 (D 130) 118-19.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

618 137, ROMAN AFRICA

increased when property passed under imperial management or that free
corn distributions dramatically increased under Nero at the expense of
the market.

What is clear, however, is that African corn was always a vital imperial
asset, a weapon of control in the emperor’s hands and a commodity for
which there was a chronic need in Italy. The unreliability and wild
fluctuation of grain yields in the pre-industrial Mediterranean are well
known. ‘Poverty and uncertainty of the morrow’, says Braudel, were
endemic pressures in the Mediterranean world that underlay ‘certain,
almost instinctive forms of imperialism’.?! Augustus’ and Tiberius’ push
to the southern pre-desert more than doubled the arable area of Roman
Africa. Claudius’ annexation of Mauretania added to the source of
jrumenta fiscalia that could be and was sometimes used, while protecting
the western flank of the old province. These may not have been the
articulated motives but they were surely powerful and instinctive ones.

1 F, Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world in the age of Philip II (London, 1972)
224-5.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 13/

CYRENE

JOYCE REYNOLDS AND J. A. LLOYD

I. INTRODUCTION

Modern Cyrenaica, in the Roman period variously named Cyrenae (from
its chief city), the Cyrenaea, the parts around Cyrene, Libya around
Cyrene, was bequeathed to Rome in default of an heir by its king
Ptolemy Physcon in 155 B.c., and inherited by her on the death of his son,
Ptolemy Apion, in 96 B.c.! Rome freed the Greek cities (we are not told
whether or not she also gave them immunity from taxation); she
probably accepted ownership of the royal property at once (the estates

! The literary evidence for the history of Roman Cyrenaica is limited and often terse and obscure.
Archaeological discoveries, including coins and inscriptions add important new information, but it
is often fragmentary and insecurely dated. A particular problem arises from the many inscriptions
which were dated by reference to an eponymous priest of Apollo, for whose year of office we have
no other evidence, or to an era which is not specified. The present writers have conjectured that after
96 8.c. the cities used an era dating from the Roman declaration of their liberty. It would be
understandable if they started another era in 75/4 or in 67 (the latter has recently been proposed,
although not quite proved, for Berenice). It is certain that Cyrene, and almost certain that Teuchira,
took Actium as a new starting-point and likely (as is assumed here) chat the other cities did the same.
Even at Cyrene, moreover, many inscriptions of the Principate are dated in a year which is patently
not Actian and is sometimes explicitly stated to be the regnal year of a named emperor.
Unfortunately the texts often fail to specify the emperor whose regnal year they were using, thus
making the precise chronology and sequence of events obscure to us. In general, see J. Reynolds, in
Gadullah 1968 (£ 7804) and on Berenicean practice, Bowsky 1987 (E 776). The main items of ancient
evidence are the following:

Inscriptions CIG 111 5129-362; CIL 111 6-11; SEG 1x; items s.v. Cyrenaica in SEG xt, xvi, xx,
xxvi-xxvui and AE 1946, 1950, 1961-2, 1967—69/70, 1973, 1974, 1976-8, 1980-3, 1985, 1987, 1989;
Smith and Porcher 1864 (z 8044) App. IV; D.M. Robinson, AJA 17 (1913) 157-200; de Visscher
1940 (B 293); G. Oliverio, QAL 4 (1961) 3-54; G. Pugliese-Caratelli, D. Morelli, ASAA 39-40
(1961-2) 217-375; G. Giambuzzi, OAL 6 (1972) 43-104; Liideritz 1983 (B 250); and corpora
published in the excavation reports on Apollonia (E 785), Berenice (E 793), Cyrene (E 775, E 780, E
793, £ 798, E 805, E 807, E 809) and Prolemais (£ 789, E 799).

Coins Robinson 1927 (B 3474); Chapman 1968 (B 3164); Buttrey 1983 (B 315), éd. 1987 (B 315A); some
recent coin discoveries are published in the excavation reports listed above.

Literary sources are very scattered; all important ones are collected in the footnotes to Thrige 1940
(z 807A) and some are given in the footnotes below.

Current archaeological discoveries are reported mainly in three journals which specialize in Libyan
archacology, Libya Antiqua (= LA, published Tripoli), Libyan Studies (= LS published London),
Quaderni di Archeologia della Libia (=QAL, published Rome); note also Africa Romana (= AR,
published Sassari). Mises aw point may be found from time to time in these joumals, and are
occasionally published separately, notably Stucchi 1967 (£ 805), Gadullah 1968 (£ 780a), Barker,
Lloyd and Reynolds 1983 (£ 7754), Stucchi 1990 (E 806a).

619

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

8007 ‘ssorg AiszaatuQ aeSsprquieg © sUTTUO saroisty espruquiey

auasd “bs dew

INTRODUCTION 621

are first unequivocally attested in her possession in 63 B.c.). The Libyans
of the region were perhaps regarded as dependants of the cities.?

By 75/4 B.c. it was clear that this attempt to exercise suzerainty at no
cost had failed. To the literary evidence for Cyrenaican instability in the
intervening years inscriptions have recently added vivid detail; there
were dissensions and tyrannies within the cities, and sometimes, appar-
ently, between them, attacks probably from Libyan raiders and certainly
from pirates, famines, sieges, lootings.? In this context a continuous
Roman presence may well have seemed preferable to freedom, bringing
a hope of peace and revived prosperity to the local population as well as
to the Roman negotiatores attested at Cyrene and probably present in all
the cities. A senatorial decision to send a quaestor to Cyrenaica is
reported of 75 or 74; the first indication of serious administrative activity
is of 67, when a cluster of inscriptions records action by Cn. Cornelius
Lentulus Marcellinus, a legate of Pompey in the Pirate War. Eutropius in
fact dated the annexation in 67 rather than 75/4, and it may have been
locally regarded as the first effective year of the new dispensation. We
know very little, however, of what was involved in that. Although
commonly stated, it is not certain that Cyrenaica was governed with
Crete at this stage, nor that governors were invariably of quaestorian
standing (although that may seem more likely than not). What we know
consists of the names of several quaestors who served there, of references
to negotiatores and to publicani there, and to the presence of Cyrenaican
silphium in the Roman treasury (some of which, however, was deposited
before annexation). The publicani were doubtless managing the royal
estates and may also have collected tax, but there-is no evidence; the
silphium,a plant which produced a gum-resin used as a condiment and for
medicinal purposes, may have come as rent in kind from the estates, or as
tax in kind, but we do not know that either.4

If there had been hopes that annexation would revive prosperity, they
were soon disappointed, for within a very few years Cyrenaica felt the
impact of the Roman civil wars. Pompey took Cyrenaican corn to feed
the troops he mustered against Caesar; after Pharsalus Pompeian
refugees collected there — eventually, it is said, 10,000 of them — under
Cato, who forced the reluctant to accept them and, indubitably, to
provide supplies for them. It is not surprising that depression is written
very clearly in the archaeological evidence for the middle of the first
century B.c. recently discovered at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi, a suburb of
ancient Berenice.$

2 SEG 1x.7; Livy, Per. 70; Tac. Ann. xiv.18; Cic. Leg. Agr. 1.19.51.
3 Plut. Lue. 2.2-4, [Plut.] Mor. 255£-2578; Joseph. Aj x1v.7.114; SEG xxv1.1817, XxvIll.1540.
4 Sall. H. 11.fr.43; App. BC#. 1.111, Eutrop. v1.11; for inscriptions, JRS 52 (1962) 97-103. Cic.

Plane. 26.63; Pliny, HN x1x.15.30.
5 Caes. BCiv. 3.5; Luc. 1x.39f, 294f; Plut. Cat. Min. 56; Steab. xvit.3.20 (836—-7c). Lloyd 1977-85

(E 793).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

622 137. CYRENE

II. THE COUNTRY

The eastern and western limits of Cyrenaica were indicated by Ptolemy I
as the Great Catabathmos, a steep pass near the modern Egyptian town
of Sollum, and Automalax, a fort on the Syrtican coast probably at
modern Bu Sceefa, a little east of the traditional eastern limit of
Carthaginian influence at Arae Philaenorum.® These were approximately
the limits of the Roman province too in 44 B.C.

How far Ptolemaic and Roman suzerainty penetrated the interior is
less clear. The forts established by the Tiberian period (see below) in the
Syrtican approaches to the Cyrenaican plateau are clues to the location of
the frontier zone there. Very recently Libyan archaeologists have found
classical material in the desert south of Mechili, including part of a stone
set up in A.D. 53/4 to mark the boundary of an estate inherited by the
Roman people from Ptolemy Apion; if it belongs where it was found it
indicates that Ptolemaic as well as Roman control was much deeper than
has been supposed.’

The sub-Saharan climate and poor soils of the western and eastern
Cyrenaican littorals render them for the most part unsuited to settled
cultivation. However, certain areas favoured by underground water,
and sometimes also by anchorage facilities, were developed in antiquity
as road-stations and minor ports. Systematic survey in the Tripolitanian
Syrtica suggests that the intensity of early Roman agrarian activity
associated with them (no doubt accompanied by pasturage) has been
seriously underestimated; the productivity of the Marmaric region, close
to the Great Catabathmos, in the late second century A.D. is illustrated by
a cadastral papyrus which records a highly organized landscape given
over to cereals, vines, figs and olives. Terracing, water collection and
storage systems and irrigation contributed to effective husbandry in
these marginal areas. A kinder environment in antiquity has not yet been
proven.8

The chief cultivable area, and so the zone of the classical cities, small
towns and villages, lies in the northern part of Jebel el Akhdar or Green
Mountain and its coastal plain. The Jebel is a limestone plateau,
cuestaform, which stretches ¢. 250km as the crow flies from Berenice
(Benghazi) in the west to Darnis (Derna) in the east and slopes down to
the Sahara in the south. Where it juts northwards into the sea (in the
direction of the Peloponnese) it has distinctly Mediterranean qualities in
its relief, climate, soils and vegetation. The coastal plain is usually

6 SEG 1x.1 (now thought to date to 322/1 B.c.).

7 Fadel Ali and Reynolds, AR 11 (1994).

8 Reddé 1988 (£ 800); P. Vat. Gr. 11 (E. Catani in Barker, Lloyd and Reynolds 1985 (£775) with
references).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE COUNTRY 623

narrow and sometimes interrupted where the mountain reaches the sea;
except, therefore, where it broadens at its western end behind Teuchira
(Tocra) and Berenice, it offers little room for cities and no possibility of a
continuous coast road (the narrowness is accentuated by a rise in the sea
level since the classical period but not, apparently, on a scale significant
enough to change the essential facts).

The mountain rises steeply on the north, by two main escarpments
from sea level to an upper plateau which reaches 500m over much of its
length and nearly 900m at Sidi Mohamed el-Hamri a little south of
Cyrene. The lower plateau, narrow at its eastern end, broadens towards
the west where it accommodates the one extensive fertile plain in the
country, controlled by ‘the Greek city of Barka and its hellenistic
successor Ptolemais-Barka. Outside this plain the landscape is frequently
undulating, with soil often collected in comparatively small depressions
and fields surrounded by rocky outcrops. Arable land is, however, quite
extensive in the area of Cyrene. In general the soils of the north Jebel are
deeper, heavier and more water-retentive than those of the coastal plain,
although there are some stretches of thinner soil which are only useful
for pasturage. They are also better watered. Rainfall, concentrated in the
winter months, may be up to 6;0mm annually on the high ground;
whereas in the coastal plain at Benghazi it is 250-—-300mm, which is close
to the minimum for dry farming; the rate is variable, however, even on
the mountain and there is everywhere danger of periodic drought.
Moreover, much of the rainfall permeates the limestone and runs
underground. It gushes out at points along the edge of the escarpments
(as, very notably, at Cyrene); but permanent fresh surface water is rare.
There was heavy dependence, therefore, on wells and cisterns, both in
the cities and in the countryside; and some construction of aqueducts for
cities is attested, at least in the Roman period. There are also a number of
water-courses (wadis) which are dry for much of the time but fill briefly
on occasions of winter flooding. They commonly run east-west in their
early stages but later turn north to reach the coastal plain where they
have often deposited good soil which attracted settlements. When broad
enough, their beds were cultivated in their upper reaches, although it
was necessary to build series of retaining walls across them, to limit the
removal of soil by flood water. On their south—north sections, however,
they have often cut deep ravines into the limestone, thus providing
passes through which movement between the coast and the several levels
of the Jebel is comparatively easy, despite the precipitous character of
the escarpments. On the upper plateau too they might provide conve-
nient routes for movement between the settled areas and the interior.
Naturally, settlements often occur on their banks and at their exits at the
sea end.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

624 137. CYRENE

The most spectacular of the wadis, the Wadi Kuf, to the south and
west of Cyrene, runs for much of its length in a deep gorge which sharply
divides the territory of Cyrene in the east from that of Barka or
Ptolemais-Barka to the west. Since it was not bridged until the twentieth
century it had a marked effect on the settlement patterns and the system
of communications. No doubt some ancient tracks crossed it at much the
same point as the modern bridge-builders have chosen, but it seems very
likely that the main ancient road from Cyrene westwards turned north to
follow the east bank of the wadi which it crossed near the sea, where it
becomes broad and shallow;9 and, since the mountain interrupts the
coastal plain to the west very soon thereafter, the road then turned south
again to run approximately parallel to the west bank for some distance
before resuming a westward direction. An alternative, but probably
minor, route by-passed the eastern end of the wadi by running south
from Cyrene through what seems to have been Libyan tribal territory,
before turning westwards. Both detours, of course, attracted settlements
along their lines and in their proximity.

On the gentle southern slopes of the Jebel the soil is decreasingly rich
and the rainfall steadily diminishing as the desert is approached. The
main value of this steppe area lay in its production of the wild plant
silphium and the pasturage of its scrub. Sedentary occupation was hardly
possible beyond the 32nd parallel except in the occasional isolated oasis.
Both steppe and desert were certainly in the domain of Libyan tribes.

Ancient accounts of the country are schematic and principally
concerned with the Cyrene area but they show some appreciation of the
configuration and its effects. Herodotus identifies three belts of land,
which he says were harvested in succession: the coastal plain, a middle
region of hills and the highest country behind. Strabo and Pliny describe
a zone extending for about 15 Roman miles south of the coast in which
trees could be grown, then a band of similar depth, devoted largely to
cereal production. Diodorus notes that the land around Cyrene (which
falls within the first zone) grew many crops (wheat, olives, vines and
wild trees) and possessed rivers (by which he probably meant the springs
which gush out along the edge of the escarpments). Beyond, Pliny
describes an area 30 miles deep and 250 miles across, in which the only
crop was the si/phium plant. Diodorus makes no mention of si/phium but
his uncultivated and featureless zone, located south of Cyrene, lacking
springs and surrounded by desert, is to be equated with the steppe
country in which the plant flourished.19

9 Laronde 1987 (E 790) 263f.
10 Hde. tv.196; Strab. xvit.3.23 (838—-9c); Pliny, HN v.5.33; Diod. 1.50.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE POPULATION 625

III. THE POPULATION, ITS DISTRIBUTION,
ORGANIZATION AND INTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS

The ancient sources encourage belief that the Cyrenaicans were all
Greeks or Greco-Romans; but the indigenous Libyan population was
large and a significant element in regional history. Equally they tend to
suggest that all Libyans were nomadic shepherds, little touched by
civilization and usually at odds with the Greeks; but the realities were
certainly much more complex.

Greeks, mostly Dorians, had come to Cyrenaica in a series of groups
beginning in the seventh century B.c. Settling within the cultivable zone
they had established, by the hellenistic period, four cities and an
unknown number of villages. The hellenistic kings, who ruled Cyrenaica
either as a dependency of or an appendix to Egypt, introduced additional
settlers; certainly a number of hellenized Jews and perhaps also others of
Macedonian, Thracian or Anatolian origin, to judge from the names
associable with these peoples that appear in the later inscriptions. The
evidence for the hellenistic settlers is clear in the cities, much weaker in
the country; that some of them did settle in the country is certain, but it is
rash to attempt an estimate of their numbers. There may have been yet
more immigrants in the first century B.c., if it is right to deduce from an
inscription at Ptolemais that in 67/6 B.c. Pompey authorized settlement
of former pirates there. Moreover, there were certainly Italian megotiatores
at Cyrene by 67 B.c. and some indication that some men and women,
predominantly South Italian in origin, and/or their slave and freedmen
employees, may have been established in Cyrenaica more or less
permanently.!!

The indigenous Libyans, depicted by Herodotus as tribally organized,
lived both in the cultivable zone and in the steppe to the south, no doubt
moving between the two as the need for pasture and tillage required; but
the tradition suggests that where geography favoured it some of them
developed villages or even agglomerations of dwellings which might
resemble towns; and this receives a little support from the discoveries of
such Libyan ‘townships’ recently made in the interior of Tripolitania (no
surveys on the same scale have yet been made in the Cyrenaican
hinterland).!2 Those living in the relevant areas are said to have helped
the first Greek settlers; and although later Cyrenaican history is punc-
tuated by Libyan wars, it is probable that peaceful interchange, intermar-
riage and cultural influence in both directions were regular. Herodotus

"NIRS §2 (196z) 99-101, and other inscriptions especially at Prolemais and Teuchira.
12 Hdt. 1v.158f; G. Barker and G.D.B. Jones, LS 15 (1984) 1-44.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

626 137. CYRENE

already reports it, and the process certainly continued after his time. It
was furthered by the trade in si/phium, collected by the Libyans but
marketed by way of the cities (see below); no doubt also by trade in
animals and animal products, of which a trace may be visible in a large
enclosure outside the south sector of the hellenistic/Roman city wall of
Cyrene, now attractively interpreted as a caravanserai for herdsmen who
brought animals from the steppe to the city market.!3 Ptolemy I thought
it necessary to rule that the sons of Greek fathers and Libyan mothers
were Citizens; and it accords with this that already in the hellenistic
period portrait sculptures of citizens may show Libyan facial types; no
doubt the Libyan names transliterated into Greek which appear in civic
inscriptions often indicate men from families of mixed blood (but recent
analysis of Greek naming patterns suggests that Libyan names in elite
families of Cyrene and Barka may sometimes reflect relations of xenia
between these families and Libyan tribal chiefs).14 Evidence for Libyan
cultural influence on Greek cults is particularly clear, but it was certainly
much more extensive than that.

The och/oi apparently resident in the cities, and mentioned in an
inscription of the first century B.c. from Teuchira, can hardly be other
than Libyans. They were, presumably, detribalized and at least partly
hellenized, but not absorbed into the citizen body. Similar groups are
likely to have existed in all cities and perhaps in the villages too.'5

At the same time in the first century B.c. many Libyans apparently
continued to live very much in their traditional way, even when they had
accepted something from the incoming culture. That is doubtless true
even within the more highly developed areas of the cultivable zone —
traces of them there can be seen, for instance, (from as late as the Roman
period) in the upper occupation strata of the cave called the Haua Fteah
on the coast near Apollonia;!6 more would certainly be found by
systematic survey. Such people were often, no doubt, engaged in
agriculture, some as dependent labour on land owned by Greeks, others,
more probably, on land communally owned by their own tribes whose
main locations were in the steppes but who would bring flocks and herds
northward for grazing after the harvest. This system of transhumance
was probably practised in ancient Cyrenaica on much the same pattern as
was observed in the middle of the twentieth century. For the tribal
groups in the steppe there is little useful evidence. Plutarch showsa tribal
chieftain in the area south of Cyrene in ¢. 87/6 B.c., in touch with
aristocrats of the city and clearly able to communicate with them, in fact

13M. Luni, OAL 10 (1979) 49f. 14 G. Herman, CQ 40 (1990) 349-63.
1S SEG 1x.1, Xxvi 1817.
16 C.B.M. McBurney, The Haxa Fteab (Cyrenaica), Cambridge, 1967.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE POPULATION 627

called in to help in the overthrow of a tyranny. Diodorus Siculus, in a
passage which may in part have derived from a knowledgeable hellenis-
tic source, wrote of four Libyan tribes in the region of Cyrenaica and of
three Libyan life-styles. There were, he said, peaceable farmers and
peaceable nomads (presumably transhumants whose seasonal move-
ments were on fixed routes), both groups obedient to their chiefs, but a
third group consisted of robbers living off the loot of their raids, and
sometimes able to coerce the peaceable into joining them. Greeks, it is
implied, were aware that many Libyans were acceptable neighbours and
that the seriously disturbing element came from further afield.!7 It has
become common recently to interpret much of Cyrenaican history as a
series of cycles in which Greek expansion of sedentary agriculture
threatened Libyan transhumance patterns and led to war, after which an
imposed peace opened the way for renewed Greek expansion of
sedentary agriculture. Events did sometimes occur in this sequence, but
Diodorus’ account suggests that it is not the key to all Greek—Libyan
clashes. The Libyans were in touch via overland routes with kindred to
the south, the east and the west; Libyan raids on Greek lands were
certainly sometimes the result of social, political or climatic change
outside Cyrenaica.

Some further information can be gleaned from the story of the plant
silphium, which grew in a belt of land south of the Greek cities (see
above). There is good reason to suppose that it was in normal supply at
least as late as 50 B.C., but by the reign of Nero the plant was a rarity; it is
generally said to have died out, but is probably a plant found in 1990 still
growing in one part of the ancient si/phium belt. Strabo explains that
barbarian invaders had deliberately destroyed it as an expression of their
hostility; his evidence accords with that of Diodorus, for it must mean
that tribesmen from a distance were damaging the resources of the
peaceful Libyan pastoralists who harvested it. Pliny, on the other hand,
blames Roman pab/icani with a contract for the pascua (presumably the
grazing tax collected for use of ager publicus populi Romani as pasture land)
who had, he said, found it profitable to encourage grazing ona scale that
prevented the plant’s survival. We cannot at present make a satisfactory
assessment of the two explanations; but they are not wholly incompat-
ible. Serious damage to the plants may well have occurred in the
Marmaric War of the reign of Augustus (see below); after that there
would be little or no si/phinm to harvest for a time and the only profit to
be made would come from the grazing tax. For present purposes
however, what matters is Strabo’s belief in an interruption of the

"7 Plut. Mor. 257a-c, Diod. 1.49, with F. Chamoux, OAL 12 (1987) 57-65.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

628 137. CYRENE

activities of one group of Libyan pastoralists in normally peaceable
relations with Greeks by another from further afield.'8

In the early second century B.c. there had been four Greek cities,
Cyrene, Ptolemais (originally the port of Barka, but becoming its centre
of government in the third century B.c.), Teuchira (called Arsinoe in the
hellenistic period, but reverting to its original, Libyan, name under the
Romans) and Berenice (the name given to the new harbour site to which
the citizens of Euhesperides had moved inc. 246 B.c.). Between the early
second century and 67 B.c. a fifth, Apollonia, was created through
promotion of Cyrene’s main port; and since hellenistic royal creations
were normally given dynastic names it is possible that this was due to
Roman intervention. Whatever its date the creation must have been
disadvantageous to Cyrene, although perhaps less so than it might seem;
it is clear in fact that a good deal of land near Apollonia had already been
taken from Cyrenaeans into the possession of the king; and after 75/4 it
seems likely that harbour dues there would all be collected for the benefit
of Rome. Apollonia and Cyrene were in dispute in 67, but there is no
evidence for tensions between them later. Apollonia soon became so
much part of the Cyrenaican scene that the whole region acquired the
name of Pentapolis, land of the five cities (first attested in the usage of the
Elder Pliny).!°

The cities, especially Cyrene, Barca and Teuchira, were sited with a
view to exploitation of particularly extensive fertile areas. There were
many other fertile and well-watered areas beyond their immediate
environs to tempt exploitation, but not of a size to support a city. The
settlers were also interested in coastal sites with a view to harbours, for
connexions with Greece, for export and import and for the convenience
of coastwise shipping by which movement eastwards and westwards was
easier than by overland routes (see above). If good harbours are scarce
on this coast, quite modest facilities would meet the needs of much
ancient shipping; but in the coastal strip even modest harbourage rarely
coincides with a sufficient hinterland to support a city. Both in the
interior, therefore, and on the coast, there were far more villages than
cities; in consequence, most city territories were unusually large. Some
villages became substantial places, as road-stations where tracks crossed,
for instance, and/or as collecting places for goods to be transmitted
between the interior and the coast; but very few ever achieved the status
of cities, even in late antiquity when this became easier to do.

There is little information about the government of these Greek
communities either before or after they came under Roman rule. A copy
of a constitution established for Cyrene in 322/1 B.c. survives, but we do
not know how much, if anything of significance, remained of it by 96,

418 Strab. xvut.3.20 (836-7¢); Pliny, HN xrx.15.3. 19. SEG xx Jog; Pliny, HN v.5.31.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE POPULATION 629

much less 44 B.c. A decree of the first century B.c. at Teuchira shows that
the number of voting citizens there at that time was very small; and that
is likely to have been the pattern in all the cities. The Libyan residents in
them presumably had no civic rights. Of their other inhabitants the
group of Roman negotiatores at Cyrene clearly formed a self-governing
community separate from, but within the city, and a community of Jews
at Berenice was similarly privileged, as no doubt were the Jews in all the
cities; at Berenice they called themselves a po/itenma and conducted their
own affairs, non-religious as well as religious, through quasi-civic
institutions. That gave them an autonomy which might very easily lead
to clashes with the civic authorities.2°

Within the city territories many of the Greek villages were too distant
from their city centres to allow of day-to-day administration from them.
Most, therefore, must have had institutions not unlike those of the
Jewish politeuma at Berenice for handling their own affairs; the model
was presumably that indicated by the one village decree so far found,
which shows something very like a civic organization with localized
euergetism and local initiatives in the matter of public building and corn
supply, probably in the early first century B.c. Strabo called the
Cyrenaican villages moAixva, and about a century later Ptolemy the
Geographer listed a number of them under the heading of wéAets; they
must have seemed rather more than ordinary villages to both. The
precise character of their relation to the cities cannot be defined. The
only real evidence is that in the territory of Cyrene a number of them
used the Cyrenaean dating system by Cyrene’s eponymous priest of
Apollo; and that in two villages Cyrene’s priests of Apollo are known to
have taken some responsibility for other cults; in both cases these were
cults which were attracting foreign visitors, but we cannot tell whether
this had anything to do with the matter or not.?!

In addition to the Greek villages we must envisage also a number of
areas within city territories but not part of them. So ‘king’s land’, which
became ager publicus populi Romani, is known to have existed within the
territories of all (see below) and in principle was surely outside civic
authority. It is probable that there were villages on some of these estates;
their inhabitants, in some cases perhaps Libyans, in others probably
Jews or other hellenistic immigrants, were surely outside the citizen
bodies; they were probably provided with the institutions of a politeuma
or something similar. Finally there will have been pockets of Libyan
tribal land also outside the civic system, none of which can now be
precisely pinpointed.

The relationship of the Greek cities one to another is also unclear.

2% SEG 1x 1, xxvi 1817, XX 715, XVI 931, XVII 823.
2 SEG 1x 354; Strab. xvit.3.21 (837¢), Prol. Geog. 1v.4.7; SEG 1x 349 for an example.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

630 137. CYRENE

Cyrene claimed to be the metropolis of all the others; Strabo called them
her vepimdAta. Taken with the ancient use of Cyrene’s name for the
whole region this has led some to think that they were her dependencies;
but that is not consistent with what we know of the independent civic life
of Berenice and Teuchira in the first century B.c. Under the Principate,
perhaps already in the time of Augustus, there seems to have been a
koinon or common council of cities, meeting in Cyrene (see below); it may
well have existed earlier and might account better for the language used
than dependency.22 As for relations with the Libyans, one might
conjecture that an eminent Cyrenean, honoured shortly after the death of
Ptolemy Apion for services to Cyrene, the other cities and the tribes of
the territories, had negotiated between the cities and the tribes relation-
ships that had formerly depended on agreements between the kings and
the tribes.

It is a natural supposition that all the peoples and types of community
described above were comprehended within the four categories, which
Strabo is said to have distinguished in “Cyrenaea’ — citizens, farmers,
perioeci and Jews. There are, however, obscurities in his formula.
Citizens should be the Greeks of the villages as well as of the cities; the
farmers might well be dependent labourers, presumably Libyan, on
Greek-owned land, but could also, perhaps, be the term for immigrants
other than Jews who worked the royal land and sedentary Libyans on
Libyan tribal land within city territories; perioeci are even more proble-
matic — possibly, but far from certainly, Libyan tribesmen in the steppe.”4

IV. FROM THE DEATH OF CAESAR TO THE CLOSE
OF THE MARMARIC WAR (C. A.D. 6/7)

In summer of 44 B.C. Cyrenaica was assigned to C. Cassius, as Crete was
to M. Brutus. There is no sign that Cassius ever went near this province.
After Philippi it naturally became part of Antony’s command and was
probably used by him, along with Crete, in the first place as a naval base.
There is a series of coins, some minted in Roman denominations, and
with parallel issues for Crete and for Cyrenaica, which have often been
connected with this; but on present evidence few can be dated precisely
enough for the connexion to be certain. By the ‘Donations of Alexan-
dria’ Antony cancelled the Roman annexation of Cyrenaica and gave it as
a kingdom to a Cleopatra, either Cleopatra herself or Cleopatra Selene;
the discovery at Cyrene of a coin of 31 B.C. from an issue which features
both Antony and Cleopatra herself has been taken to suggest that the
whole issue should be attributed to Cyrene, with the implication that the
new queen was Cleopatra herself. There is no indication that anything

2 Strab. xvit.3.21 (837¢). 2 SEG xx 729. 2% Strabo ap. Joseph. AJ xrv.7.114.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CAESAR TO THE MARMARIC WAR 631

was done to reconstitute a royal administration however. Antony
garrisoned Cyrenaica with four Roman legions under L. Pinarius
Scarpus (coins have survived from several of the issues that he made to
pay his men); and the cities must have borne the burden of providing
supplies for them. After Actium, Scarpus was quick to change alle-
giance, refused Antony a landing and, in due course, handed over
Cyrenaica and its garrison to Cornelius Gallus as Octavian’s representa-
tive; surprisingly he had time to issue coins carrying the name of
Octavian before he left. The recovery of Cyrenaica for Rome —
mentioned in the Res Gestae — was undoubtedly celebrated in Octavian’s
triumph. But what he recovered was an area in poor shape; the
excavation at Sidi Khrebish shows unchecked decay throughout the
third quarter of the century.?5

Octavian/ Augustus introduced a new order, which was recognized in
Cyrene by the use of a provincial era starting in 31 B.c. At any rate from
27 B.c. Cyrenaica was administered together with Crete, governed by a
proconsul of praetorian status. He and the quaestor appointed with him,
normally held office for one year, and divided their time between the two
parts of the province. The provincial Fasti are full of gaps and
uncertainties, so that it would be rash to generalize from them about the
kind of men who served in the province and the kind of careers to which
they proceeded, at any rate for the reign of Augustus, and indeed, for
most of the first century A.D.

The provincial capital was at Cyrene; but it is likely that the governor
also held assizes at Prolemais where there are, as at Cyrene, a number of
official inscriptions in Latin. These official texts include prayer formulae
of the type used by the Arval Brethren at Rome on 3 January each year
and certainly prove that Latin rituals (concerned with the preservation of
the current emperor and his family) were conducted in the agorae of each
of these cities. There are also from each a few soldiers’ tombstones, some
probably of the first century A.D., perhaps for men who served as the
governors’ guards.%

Whatever had been the case earlier, the cities had now lost their
freedom and the province was certainly taxed. Collection of portoria on
goods passing in and out of provincial harbours and frontier stations
would normally be let to publicani. Given the large areas occupied by
Libyans as well as the complex character of most city territories, it would
be understandable if Augustus thought it best to use publicani also for
collection of the land tax rather than to entrust it to the cities; but as
publicani must also have managed the ager publicus it is not always possible

23 App. BCiv. 11.1.8 with Cic. Pdi/. 11.38.97, x1.12, 27. For coins Buttrey 1983 (B 315); Plut. At.
34-4, 69.2; Dio xL1x.32.4~5, LI.5.6, RG 27. Sidi Khrebish: Lloyd 1977-85 (£ 793).
2% PBSR 30 (1962) 33-6.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

632 137. CYRENE

to distinguish contractors for tax collection from contractors for the
public estates in our sparse evidence. A very recently discovered
inscription, probably of the Julio-Claudian period, records a dedication
to Ceres Augusta in a major precinct of Demeter and Kore at Cyrene, by
a promagister publici Cyrenen(sis), who, on the face of it, was the
representative in Cyrene of a company of publicani collecting tax. Given
his connexion with Ceres, this was probably the land tax, which may well
have been collected in kind, and so mainly in cereals. It is a reasonable
conjecture that the contract for collection of all Roman taxes in
Cyrenaica was let to one company (hence the pablicum Cyrenense in
contrast to, for example, the quattuor publica Africae), since the profits
from each individual tax were perhaps insufficient to tempt bidders.
Possibly the contract for management of the ager publicus was \et along
with that for taxation.2’

No imperial estates are at present attested in Cyrenaica in the first or
second centuries A.p.; certainly no procurator is attested there before the
early third century A.D. and there are no adequate grounds for accepting
the view that the procurators of Crete also operated in Cyrenaica. One
inscription of uncertain date at Ptolemais shows that there were, at some
stage, members of the imperial household there; but at present we have
no information at all about their function.?8

The arrangements of Augustus provided, in the long term, for a
reasonably stable and prosperous Cyrenaica; in the short term, new
problems arose, recovery was certainly interrupted and the period of the
reign cannot be regarded as an unqualified success. That is best
illustrated at Sidi Khrebish where the district remained in a dilapidated
and deserted state throughout it, although the one small temple there
was receiving votives, and a channel aqueduct was constructed across it
to carry water to a point beyond it, showing that developments were
taking place nearer to the city centre. Of those we have a little positive
evidence in two inscriptions erected by the Jewish community of
Berenice; they seem to show an active group, possessing a meeting house
that is grandly called an amphitheatre, which one of the members could
afford to redecorate at his own expense; nevertheless, and despite the
inclusion of a few Roman citizens in the community, its financial
competence seems to have been modest overall, since the stelae carrying
the inscriptions are small.?°

There is more evidence from the centres of the other cities, and
although comparatively little of it can be firmly dated in the first three-
quarters of the reign it seems to justify belief that normality was

27 SEG 1x 8, xxvit 1159, Pliny, HN xrx.15.3, Fadel Ali and Reynolds, LS 25 (1994) 214-17.

2% CIG 111 5194.

2% SEG xv1931, xvi1 823. JR does not accept the view that this was a civic amphitheatre in which
the Jews had a right to display their inscriptions and an obligation to contribute to maintenance.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CAESAR TO THE MARMARIC WAR 633

returning. At Cyrene that is demonstrated by a stela of ¢. 16-15 B.C.
containing the end of a civic decree which conferred the annual
priesthood of the cult of Augustus on Barkaeus son of Theuchrestos (we
know that he held it in 17/16) and others relating to the will in which he
bequeathed one estate to Apollo and Artemis for the use of their priests
and another to Hermes and Herakles for provision of oil in the civic
gymnasium. Prized amenities of city life were available to citizens, then,
and at least one rich citizen showed his patriotism in the traditional way
by benefactions. Civic administration was proceeding as it should. In
addition, imperial cult had been quickly established and integrated into
the local system of honours (and, no doubt, liturgies); in fact we know
from other inscriptions that at this period the name of the priest of
Augustus was being used, along with that of the priest of Apollo, to date
civic documents.»

Nevertheless the dated inscriptions on public Works suggest that an
extensive programme of repair and new building was still needed in the
last decade of the reign and was, in part at least, undertaken by Roman
officials; that should perhaps be related to a series of problems that can be
detected earlier.

The first of these problems to appear in the record concerns the Jewish
communities. At a comparatively early date in the reign they complained
that the cities were preventing the dispatch of the money that they
offered annually to Jerusalem and harming them in other ways; Augus-
tus responded with a letter to the governor confirming both their right
to dispatch the money and their isote/eia, which perhaps meant their
immunity from the metic tax paid to the cities by resident aliens. By the
time of Agrippa’s command in the East (17/16—13 B.C.) this decision was
being ignored; in Cyrene at least, and probably in the other cities too,
informers were accusing the Jews of failure to pay civic taxes due from
them and the civic authorities were therefore preventing dispatch of the
sacred money again. After hearing a Jewish embassy Agrippa wrote to
the city of Cyrene, with a reference to the other cities also, reaffirming the
tulings of Augustus. That the provocative factor was clearly financial
suggests that the cities were conscious that their means were limited.
Nothing more is heard of the matter. By a.D. 3-4, moreover, a few
Jewish names appear in a list of ephebes at Cyrene and among the graffiti
on monuments in the gymnasium; while in a.p. 60-1 one of the
Cyrenaean magistrates called vopodiAaxes had a Jewish name. It would
appear that some kind of accommodation had been reached between
Greeks and Jews, perhaps in order to secure Jewish financial contribu-
tions to civic life, as happened in Asia Minor in the Severan period.*!

3% SEG 1x 4, and some unpublished texts.
31 Joseph. AJ xv1.160.9f, 165f; SEG xx 737.8, 740.2~3, 7414.34, 47, 48, $7, 741¢.13; D 50.2.3.3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

634 137. CYRENE

When the cities of Cyrenaica, probably acting jointly, sent ambassa-
dors to Augustus in 7-6 B.c., there were quite other problems to put to
him, mainly concerned with the administration of justice in criminal
cases, but involving also the relations of Greeks with Roman citizens
and, to some extent, of Greeks with Greeks. The fact that the embassy
was sent is, in itself, evidence for some enterprise in the cities (and
perhaps for co-operation among them in a oinon). The facts that
necessitated it provide unusually sharp insights into the continuing
defects of Roman provincial government, as well as into the specific
difficulties of this province.32

The first striking point is that Roman citizens resident in Cyrenaica
(most of whom were probably immigrants, judging by their nomencla-
ture) had been successfully ganging up against Greeks, to procure
sentences, including death sentences, on innocent men. They were aided
by an obviously unsatisfactory system of jury-courts in which prosecu-
tion, witnesses and jurors might all be drawn from a very small group of
resident Romans. The second edict may add a further insight if, behind
its obscurely allusive formulae, we may see a plot by the three Roman
citizens it names to involve Greeks in charges of disloyalty to Augustus.

A second point is the implication in Augustus’ provisional proposals
for reform of the jury system that Greeks could not always trust other
Greeks to give them justice; he thought it wise to offer them the option
of all-Roman juries in the courts for which he proposed that there should
normally be mixed juries, and, in those for which he proposed all-Greek
juries, advised that no juryman should be drawn from the same city as
anyone directly involved in the case. It must be admitted that it is not
certain that this was based on anything in the recent Cyrenaican record
rather than on wider experience of Greek feuding, but it is not unlikely,
given Cyrene’s earlier reputation for violent staseis.

Thirdly, there are now clear indications of financial weakness in the
province. The panel from which the Roman jurymen were drawn
consisted of 215 names, all that could be found to meet a minimum
property qualification as low as 2,500 denarii; Augustus proposed a
minimum property qualification of 7,500 denarii for Greek as well as
Roman jurymen and was conscious that there might be difficulty in
finding enough men who could meet it. We should not, of course,
suppose that there were no rich men in Cyrenaica, but must accept that
there was no substantial number of reasonably well-off men even among
the resident Roman citizens. A similar implication underlies Augustus’
decision that a Cyrenaean Greek who received Roman citizenship must
continue to fulfil his local obligations unless specifically given exemption

2 SEG ix 8= EJ? 311.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CAESAR TO THE MARMARIC WAR 635

from them at the time of his enfranchisement (and then only in respect of
property that he owned at that time).

It is hard to believe that there can have been any perceived threat of
attack from outside at the time when the embassy went to Augustus; and
it is still hard when two years later the province received its copy of the
fifth edict (setting out a new procedure for certain types of extortion and
addressed to all provinces, not specifically to Cyrenaica), for Cyrene then
decided, in an apparently carefree mood, to have all five documents
inscribed ona marble stela for erection in the agora. It is reasonable then
to take 5/4 B.c. as the serminus post quem for the next major problem, the
raids, ona scale justifying use of the word war, made by the Libyan tribe
of Marmaridae (who were located both in the area between Cyrenaica
and Egypt and in the Syrtica, between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania). An
inscription at Cyrene celebrated the conclusion of this war for the city in
A.D. 3, attributing it to the merits of Pausanias, eponymous priest of
Apollo in that year. To what happened in between these two dates there
is an almost certain reference, without context, in an extract from Dio,
Book Lv, apparently of a.p. 1. Raids, we are told, had gone unchecked by
others and by soldiers coming from Egypt, until a praetorian tribune was
brought in, when control was established but only after a long period
when no senator was sent to govern the cities. A number of Cyrenaican
inscriptions can also be associated with these events, most usefully two
decrees from Cyrene. The first of these honours Alexandros son of
Aiglanor who himself fought in them, killing many of the enemy and
taking prisoners. It may well be that when the raids began there were no
Roman troops in the province because the cities were expected to deal
with that kind of trouble by local militias — using ephebes and neoi (young
men just past their ephebic training years), the practice described in the
early first century B.C. in a decree at Berenice. If so the system proved
inadequate and troops had to be summoned, but they too were, at first,
unsuccessful. The second decree details the activities of Phaos son of
Kleandros who undertook a dangerous embassy in winter storms during
the war and brought back most timely help; the language would accord
with a journey to Rome to persuade Augustus to send Dio’s praetorian
tribune, presumably accompanied by new military forces. The decrees
may, of course, exaggerate the weight of responsibility which fell onto
the cities at the onset of trouble; but it is certain that Augustus’
arrangements had failed to provide for the defence of Cyrenaica. A small
gobbet of literary evidence, from Florus, adds that, at an unstated date,
Augustus entrusted a war against the Marmaridae and Garamantes to P.
Sulpicius Quirinius, a senator whose career is full of problems. Florus’
evidence might refer to a governorship of Crete and Cyrene held by him
in ¢. 15 B.C. soon after his praetorship; but Florus seems to suggest that

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

636 137. CYRENE

he was associated with the campaign of Cossus Cornelius Lentulus,
proconsul of Africa, against the Gaetuli in the Syrtica in a.p. 5—6. By
then Quirinius was a rather senior man to hold such an appointment
unless, perhaps, we suppose that he was given responsibility not simply
for finishing the desert campaign, but for constructing a defence system
for Cyrenaica in the Syrtica. It would appear that there was no such
system when the Marmaridae began their raids; but a line of forts had
been built by the reign of Tiberius, the earliest evidence being perhaps of
A.D. 15 and certainly of a.p. 21. There is, unfortunately, nothing at
present which firmly links these forts to Quirinius, but the chronology
may be thought to favour it.%3

The Syrtican forts provided a screen behind which the province could
develop in security from desert raiders and their establishment marks a
new phase in the history of Cyrenaica. The screen consisted of a series of
strongpoints intended to protect the western and south-western
approaches to Cyrenaica, each placed beside a major watering-point for
the effective oversight of the populations using it and providing bases
for patrols who moved further afield. The garrisons were drawn from
auxiliary units of the Roman army and in some cases have left informa-
tive graffiti on fort walls and at local shrines. At Sceleidima and Msus
(ancient names unknown) there were mounted as well as infantry
soldiers, some of the men spoke Latin and several, to judge from their
names, were recruited in Spain or Gaul. At Agedabia (ancient Cornicla-
num) a number of men came from Syria, chosen no doubt because of
their desert experience. At the same time, and along with the graffiti of
men who were certainly regular auxiliary soldiers of the Roman army,
there are also graffiti of men whose names are drawn froma recognizably
Cyrenaican repertoire, and in their mixture of Greek, Libyan and Latin,
recall the ephebic graffiti of Teuchira and Ptolemais. Their interpretation
is uncertain. They might indicate one episode of military recruiting in
Cyrenaica (such as is attested during the Julio-Claudian period), but
since they very rarely include any reference to military status, they may
be the work of ephebes or xeoi from the cities, doing tours of duty
alongside, or in substitution for, Roman soldiers.

Vv. A.D. 4-70

After the Marmaric War reconstruction in the cities was taken in hand
quickly. At Cyrene a series of inscriptions of the last decade of Augustus’
reign and the early years of Tiberius’ shows Roman officials concerned
with repairs to public buildings in the agora and its neighbourhood, in

33 SEG 1x 63; Dio. tv.10a; ASAA 39-40 (1960-1) 321, no.8; OGIS 767; Flor. 11.31; Desanges
1969 (E 778); SEG rx 773-95; J. Reynolds, AR 5 (1988) 167-72.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 4-70 637

the sanctuary of Apollo, in the temple of Zeus, and perhaps on the
defensive walls of the acropolis (but that may have been earlier). In some
cases the credit is attributed to a commander of a cohort, suggesting that
it began before normal proconsular government was resumed, although
it certainly carried on after that for some years.34 The involvement of
Roman officials in building, for which they presumably made funds
available, could perhaps be compared with the help that Rome was
beginning to give to provincials suffering from natural disasters;
although there is no clear evidence that these repairs were necessitated by
direct enemy action (failure to maintain the soft local building stone
might be sufficient explanation). The inscriptions on the buildings are
more often in Latin than might have been expected, which may reflect
the presence of Latin speakers, not only soldiers but also the resident
Roman negotiatores who have left at least one Julio-Claudian record (not
precisely dated), apparently from a building which they themselves
erected.35 But it would be mistaken to ignore the part which the Greek
citizens were playing too. Fragments of a series of inscribed civic decrees
give glimpses of the city’s government in operation.°6 The texts of
several of these stress the public spirit of the honorands, making it clear
that during the Marmaric War men had given very generously indeed in
personal effort as well as in money, and continued to do so. Minor
monuments show that there were candidates enough for the expensive
priesthood of Apollo, and that the ephebic organization was active.
Among dedications, the city’s large marble altar for the cult of Gaius and
Lucius Caesar in the agora is a notable — and surely costly — demonstration
of the point.3? Moreover, by the middle of the first century A.D. the lists
of Cyrene’s priests of Apollo begin to show men with Roman citizenship
(usually with the names Tiberius Claudius, implying enfranchisements
under the emperors Claudius and Nero); that should mean that the
public services of these men were of some note.*8 It is possible also that
one man from Cyrene entered the Senate at Rome, Antonius Flamma,
the proconsul of Crete and Cyrene who was prosecuted and exiled in A.D.
70 for extortion in Cyrenaica. Several men with the names M. Antonius
Flamma appear as priests of Apollo and as sponsors of public works at
Cyrene in the middle of the first century a.D. and the grandson of one of
them (by his daughter) was certainly a Roman senator in the time of the
emperor Trajan. It is tempting, therefore, to identify the earliest of the
Antonii Flammae of Cyrene with the proconsul; but since it is inherently
unlikely that a Greek from this province would have obtained entry to

¥ AE 1927, 140, 1968, 5 36-8, probably also 5 32-4, $39, $40; G. Oliverio, Africa Italiana 3 (1930)
198f; L. Gasperini, O.AL 6 (1971) 3-22; and some unpublished inscriptions.

35 For instance L. Gasperini in Stucchi 1967 (E 8054) 175, no. 38.

36 See the inscription cited in n. 28. 37 Unpublished. 3% E.g. SEG 1x 183, 184.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

638 137. CYRENE

the Senate at so early a date, his family should probably be seen as one of
Italian immigrants which accepted Cyrenaean citizenship and probably
married into the local aristocracy. If the proconsul was from Cyrene
(whether a true Greek or not) we should know at least one really rich
man in the province. His prosecution might be held to show feuding
within the elite class at Cyrene which, perhaps, expressed itself in
support of different Roman factions in the months of civil war after the
fall of Nero.39

At Cyrene then recovery is clear. What little we know of Apollonia at
this time suggests a similar series of developments there. For Ptolemais
and Teuchira there is a different type of evidence. At present building
inscriptions, civic decrees and dedications are rare in these cities, but
there are plentiful ephebic graffiti and funerary inscriptions throughout
the first century a.p.;“ that seems to show that there were quite sizeable
citizen populations able to afford ephebic training for their sons and a
literate, if often modest, memorial for themselves. For Berenice the
evidence is different again. Aside from a few statues of Tiberian date
which may have come from the city centre or nearby, it consists in what
is shown by the excavation of Sidi Khrebish. At approximately the
middle of the first century A.D. the whole desolate area was levelled, new
paved streets. were laid and new houses were built. These had ground
plans and external fagades like those of their hellenistic predecessors but
more substantial foundations and some more elaborate features such as
peristyle courtyards, underground cisterns and a little architectural
decoration. At the least, they seem to imply that the population of
Berenice was growing again and needed more living-space. A Jewish
inscription of Neronian date from the city has been used independently
of this evidence to argue for an increase in the size of the politeuma
population, since the number of its officials is greater than in the earlier
inscriptions; it certainly shows reconstruction of the synagogue funded
by its members, through subscriptions that were quite numerous
although in no case large.*!

In the villages too there appears to have been an increase in the
number of funerary inscriptions erected, most of them quite modest,
some very much so, but nevertheless evidence that more of the rural
people valued a literate funerary record than before, and perhaps
indicating an increased rural population. At any rate a military levy was
held in Cyrenaica in the fifties suggesting that there was no perceived
manpower shortage at that time.*2

Evidence for Roman official activity is now limited. We know that

39 Reynolds 1982 (E 802).
4 SEG 1x 361-726 (in need of revision). There are also some unpublished texts.
4. SEG xvi 823. 42 Tac. Ann. xiv.18.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

A.D. 4-70 ; 639

once in the reign of Tiberius the routine was broken and the tenure of a
governor prolonged for three years — but perhaps for reasons connected
with the fall of Sejanus rather than with Cyrenaica. Four times we hear
that Roman officials provoked Cyrenaeans to prosecute them at Rome,
usually for extortion. Only for two Roman initiatives, both due to
Claudius, can anything more be said, one concerned with roads, the
other with ager publicus.9

It is generally held that there was already a good system of communi-
cations in Cyrenaica before the Romans came, linking villages and cities,
interior and coast, quite adequately. Its tracks may often be recognized as
shallow cuttings in rock-surfaces, perhaps also showing deep wheel-
ruts, and sometimes lined by rock-cut sarcophagi and other tombs; there
is no sign that any other method of road construction ever superseded it.
Neither construction of such tracks nor their repair (a simple process of
cutting away a damaged surface) are datable. So although we might
expect the Romans to have paid attention to the system quite early, even
to have extended it in connexion with the Marmaric War, there would be
no indication of that unless their work included the erection of
milestones. On preser:t evidence the earliest milestones in Cyrenaica are
those erected in the name of Claudius, on the Cyrene—Apollonia road,
the crucial link between Cyrene and the outside world, and on the
Cyrene—Balagrae road which led from the city towards some of her most
fertile territory, from there on towards the cities of Ptolemais-Barka,
Teuchira and Berenice and beyond them to the Syrtican forts.44 We
cannot be sure how much to put to Claudius’ credit and especially
whether he was responsible for the very important development which
involved rerouting the road from Cyrene to Apollonia on a new line
which was less steep and less subject to winter flooding than its
predecessor. Nor do we know his reasons for action on the Cyrenaican
roads; but he may well have been strongly influenced by his concern for
the corn supply of the city of Rome, which should have giver him an
interest in Cyrenaican cereal production and in the movement of the
grain from the interior to the coast.

“An interest in cereal production may also have been a factor, along
with straightforward fiscal considerations, in his decision to appoint a
praetorian senator, L. Acilius Strabo, as his legate with a commission to
recover ager publicus in Cyrenaica which had been occupied by squat-
ters.*5 Acilius Strabo appears to have spent a good deal of time dealing
with a number of small estates in the cultivable zone and apparently with
some land in the si/phium belt (see above). The series of stelae that he
erected after reclamation of land begins in Claudius’ reign, when he was

43 InserCret tv 272 (ILS 158); Tac. Aan. 111.38.1, xtv.18.1, Hist. 1v.45.2.
* Goodchild 1950 (E 781). 45 J. Reynolds, L.A 8 (1971) 47-51.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

640 137. CYRENE

at work in country districts east and south of Cyrene; it carries on after
Nero’s accession and while some of his Neronian stelae are in country
districts, a number stand in close proximity to Cyrene and Apollonia.
That apparently brought him up against articulate and powerful men in
the city elites so that in A.D. 59 he was prosecuted for misconduct. Nero,
who heard the case, acquitted him, but nevertheless allowed the
squatters to remain in possession, although the survival of many of
Strabo’s stelae could mean that some of his reclamations were retained.

In the circumstances it would not be surprising if some Cyrenaicans
regarded the fall of Nero with regret. Their attitudes and fortunes during
the course of the year of the four emperors are not recorded but it is fair
to wonder how enthusiastic they felt about the accession of Vespasian,
who had once been a quaestor in the province. If they did have doubts
they were, in a sense, justified for one of his early acts was to resume the
reclamation of ager publicus.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 1424

GREECE (INCLUDING CRETE AND CYPRUS)
AND ASIA MINOR FROM 43 B.c. TO A.D. 69

B. M. LEVICK

I. GEOGRAPHY AND DEVELOPMENT

The area to be dealt with here was in some senses a unity, in others, less
important, diverse and falling into three regions, mainland Greece and
the islands, western Asia Minor, and the Anatolian plateau.! What
unified it was geography — common subjection to Mediterranean
geology and climatic conditions and the seasonal aridity that governs
Mediterranean agriculture; language — it was all predominantly Greek-
speaking; history — the entire area had come under the sway of Alexander
the Great and then that of Rome; and devotion to common political -
ideals, those of the city-state (po/is). Within these categories came also the
variety. In Asia Minor the thin border of arable soil that fronts the
limestone mountains of mainland Greece, the ‘bare bones’ of Attica, as
Plato calls them,? was being enriched and extended by accretions
brought down by the rivers; to such an extent that cities such as Priene,
built like most Greek cities for communication by sea, had already found
themselves stranded inland; even Miletus and Ephesus were to lose their
position on the coast in the end. Inland and to the east, as the mountains
rise into the Anatolian plateau and then into the Taurus range, with its

' The most important literary sources are the Geography of Strabo, Books viti-x (332—489c)
(Greece) and x11-x1v (490-68 5c) (Asia Minor), the Acts of the Apostles, Pausanias’ Guide to Greece,
and Pliny’s Natural History, especially Books 111-v1; historical material is supplied by Cassius Dio’s
Roman History Books xtvui~-Lxu, Appian’s Civil Wars Book v, and Tacitus’ Azna/s. A prime
contribution has been made by archaeology (e.g. Forschungen in Ephesos verdffentlicht vom Osterr.
archéolog. Inst. in Wien 1-9 (Vienna, 1906-81); Altertiimer von Pergamon 1-15.i (Berlin, 1911-86);
Corinth: Results of Excavations of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 1-17 (Cambridge,
MA, 1932-85); for recent work see the Archaeological Reports published by the Society for the
Promotion of Hellenic Studies and the British School at Athens); and inscriptions, of which the
main collections are to be found in CIL mt, IG, IGRR, SEG, and SIG3, TAM and the Inschriften
griech. Stédte aus Kleinasien (Kommission f. d. arch. Erforschung Kleinasiens bei d. Oster. Akad. d. Wiss.,
Inst. f. Altertumsk. d.Univ. Kéln), 1- (Bonn, 1972-_); J. and L. Robert, Bulletin épigraphique in
REG 51-97 (1937-84), is indispensable. Coins are hardly less important, and B.V. Head’s Historia
Numorum is the most succinct guide to them; the main publications are W.H. Waddington, E.
Babelon, and Th. Reinach, Recueil géneral des monnaies grecques d Asie Mineure (Paris, 1904-1912, vol.1,
edn 2 1925), BMC and SNG (notably SNG von Aulock), and RPC, and Burnett ef a/. 1992 (B 312).

Tam much indebted to Dr S. Alcock (Reading) for many helpful comments and suggestions, and
especially for directing my attention to a number of useful books and articles.

2 PL. Criti. ri1b.

641

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

8007 ‘ssorg AiszaatuQ aeSsprquieyg © sUTTUO saroisty esprquiey

‘uraday ai pure aaaa1g “$1 dep

Bunn LW 2y
wINo vi {3

ey cy

yiogny }

syro8ey ee _ -
—SesBoues Qeeideoy |

my
erm? ne Brees
TANS
4 > ¥
4 food
Bi oe e A
¥
- ~ ©

Al SS IHL *

S has

644 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

southern extension into Lycia and Cilicia Tracheia, a more continental
type of climate takes over, with long severe winters and summers no less
dry than those of Greece and the islands. Grain and the vine could be
grown, but not the olive; cattle and above all sheep were the staple
product, with minerals a potential source of wealth; textiles of all kinds
were among the most important products of the entire peninsula. The
Greek language had been carried from the mainland and the islands to
the west, north and south coasts of Asia Minor by waves of colonists in
the tenth and then the seventh and sixth centuries B.c., and hellenization
had continued in the wake of Alexander’s conquests. In the Anatolian
plateau its advance was slow; Lydian, Mysian, Celtic, above all Phrygian
and Lycian survived in the villages and tribes of the hinterland, the last
two appearing even on inscribed monuments; but the Attalid kings
promoted and consolidated Greek art and culture in the west, in what
was to become in 133 B.c. the Roman province of Asia, making their
capital, Pergamum, an outstanding example of the hellenistic city. Even
in central Asia Minor cities with names such as Apamea and Antioch
attest the activity of Alexander’s successors as creators of poleis. Deve-
loped in mainland Greece as a natural product of divisive geography,
they proved a means of self-government, a source of military security, a
centre of exchange, a focus of religion, a fosterer of education and
culture. The wealth, power and self-confidence of the city-dwellers made
them people to emulate in Asia Minor. At the same time the strength of
the way of life and the institutions that were giving way to urbanization
there should not be underrated. A tribal or village organization,
reinforced by a common cult, suited sparse populations isolated in hilly
country or scattered over a homogeneous and inhospitable plateau and
assembling only occasionally to exchange produce at religious centres
like Hierapolis in Phrygia and Comana in Pontus or at other markets on
the main routes through the peninsula. The differences between the three
regions, mainland Greece and the islands, western Asia Minor, and the
Anatolian plateau, remained clear and are only lightly masked by the
Greek terminology and nomenclature that literacy and public life were
imposing.

The manner and timing of the Roman acquisition of these regions was
another important variable: mainland Greece fell first, in 146 B.c., after
half a century of Roman protestations that it was to ensure Greek
freedom that Roman troops had crossed the Adriatic, and after a bitter
struggle that ended with many cities deprived of their freedom. In Asia
Minor the first acquisition was the bequest of 133, the Attalid kingdom;
Bithynia and Pontus were annexed, the first another bequest, the second
after the wars with Mithridates the Great, seven decades later. Central
Anatolia, as its geography made natural, was treated in the first century

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD 645

as a military problem under the name of Provincia Cilicia: a base for
action against pirate strongholds in the mountains and a means of
safeguarding the route from western Asia Minor to Syria. The islands of
Crete and Cyprus were allowed to survive for longer outside direct
control, Cyprus until P. Clodius Pulcher passed a bill for its annexation
in 58 B.c., Crete in part at least until the end of the Republic.

The Romans were heirs of Alexander and his successors, and
benefited from the urbanization achieved under them. In Greece proper
there was little more to be done in that direction: it was more a question
of preserving the poles without which control of the empire, for a ruling
power whose resources were stretched to the utmost, would be close to
impossible in the absence of any alternative organization. Greece was in
economic decline in relation to Asia Minor, with its superior fertility and
resources. The lot of Roman governors of Asia was easy, and tempting

‘to the unscrupulous. Even in spite of their greed, urbanization and
prosperity would have prevailed, if this area and Bithynia-Pontus had
been left in peace. Instead, Greece and western Asia Minor were
involved in foreign wars, directly between 88 and 84, indirectly from 74
to 63, and disastrously caught up in civil struggles from 49 to 31 B.C.

II. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD?

The Greek East suffered more in the thirteen years of intermittent civil
war that followed Caesar’s death than in the swift campaigns that made
him supreme. In Asia Minor devastation of the countryside, destruction
of cities and their inhabitants, the imposition of fines and exceptional
levies came successively at the hands of three parties. First the republi-
cans: late in 43 Brutus forced Lycia to contribute to his war chest,
stormed Xanthus, and, together with Cassius, robbed Rhodes (in spite of
a plea from Cassius’ old teacher Archelaus), Tarsus, and other cities.
Client kings also suffered. Ariobarzanes I] Eusebes Philoromaios of
Cappadocia was executed, Deiotarus of Galatia brought to join the
Liberators and send cavalry to Philippi under his secretary Amyntas.
Even after the triumvirs’ victories at Philippi and Naulochus, Sex.
Pompeius’ raiding of 35 damaged the area round the Propontis. A
second factor was the Parthian invasion under Q. Labienus, 4o—38: they
advanced along the highway from Syria to Asia and, in spite of resistance
from the brigand chief Cleon of Gordiucome, plundered the cities of
Caria, notably Mylasa and Aphrodisias, where sanctuaries and private
property alike were looted. Finally, Antony: on his arrival in Asia Minor
in 40 his first demand was the same ten years’ worth of taxes that had
been produced for Brutus and Cassius. After Philippi there was the

3 For these events, see App. BCiv. 1.5 7ff; Dio xivitt.26—34; XLVII.24-41; XLIX. 19733.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

646 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

disbandment of thirty legions to be paid for, and in 39-38 and 36-34
campaigns against the Parthians to be financed. The period ended with
Antony’s mobilization of the East against Octavian, when even the
sacred grove of Asclepius on Cos was cut down to supply timber for
ships. The damage armies could do was limited and business carried on;
but the effects of uncertainty on the availability of credit, cash loans and
all long-term enterprise must be taken into account.

By the Treaty of Brundisium (40 B.c.) Greece from Scodra south-
wards was under the control of Antony (although in 39 the Peloponnese
was abortively assigned to Sex. Pompeius), and so was the whole of
Anatolia. Antony exercised patronage in the area, but so did Octavian,
granting citizenship to individuals such as Seleucus of Rhosus,* who
continued as his protégés, and extending the privileges of cities.
Through a well-placed intermediary who became the city’s favourite
son, Octavian’s freedman C. Iulius Zoilus, ‘Caesarian’ Aphrodisias
secured a decree of the Senate and a law of the People guaranteeing
freedom, immunity from taxation, and enhanced asylum rights; an
attempt was also to be made to recover looted property.>

The area under discussion falls into three regions. Rulers confronted
with the problem of controlling each would be guided by political,
military and economic factors. Mainland Greece, Crete and the Cyclades
in political terms were well able to govern themselves; economically the
mainland at least was an area in decline and depopulation, unlikely to
make much contribution to the cost of running it and very unlikely to
present any threat to security. Next, western Asia Minor and the adjacent
islands: the provinces of Asia and Bithynia were long habituated to
obedience as the subjects of Lydian, Persian and hellenistic monarchs;
they, like the more remote southern coast, Pamphylia and Cilicia Pedias,
had enormous economic possibilities: two-thirds of the cities coining in
Asia Minor under Augustus and Tiberius were in the province of Asia.
Third, the Anatolian plateau, politically and economically underdeve-
loped, in spite of Pompey’s city foundations in Pontus, was daunting and
as yet unprofitable. The three regions were accordingly handled differ-
ently both by Antony and by his successors in power, the emperors.

It was for sound political, economic and military reasons, then, that
only Asia, Bithynia and Cilicia Pedias were governed as Roman
provinces between 42 and 31 B.c. The rest of Asia Minor was subject to
skilfully chosen client princes® (Lycia was an autonomous federation of

4 EJ? 301. 5 Reynolds 1982 (8 270) 7-12.

6 For the vicissitudes of dependent rulers, see Magie 1950 (E 853) 427—315; Bowersock 1963 (c
39) 42-61; Jones 1971 (D 96) 110-214; Sullivan 1978 (E 878) 732-98; 1980 (E 879) 913-30; 1980 (E
880); stemmata at Sullivan 1980 (£ 879) 928 and 1980 (E 880) 1136; Braund 1984 (c 254) for

individuals. For Strabo’s insight into the value of client kingdoms, that their rulers, unlike Roman
governors, were always on the spot and armed, see xIv.5.5—9 (671C).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTAN RESTORATION 647

twenty-three cities’). They, not Rome, had the burden of defending and
administering it and the duty of supporting their patrons, who could
give, take, or trim their kingdoms as he chose. On Deiotarus’ death in 40
his son Castor received Galatia and the interior of Paphlagonia;
Deiotarus’ share of Pontus, the coastal area, went to Darius, son of
Caesar’s enemy Pharnaces and grandson of Mithridates the Great;
Amyntas received northern Pisidia, and Polemon I, son of Zeno of
Laodicea, who had resisted Labienus, took Lycaonia, Iconium and the
adjacent parts of Cilicia Tracheia; Pedias, like Cyprus, passed into
Cleopatra’s hands, Olba, west of Pedias, was ruled by the priestly house
of the Teucrids and the kingdom of the Amanus in the east was left under
its hereditary ruler Tarcondimotus.

Antony rewarded success. On Castor’s death in 37, Galatia, Lycaonia
and the Pamphylian coast were added to Amyntas’ domain; Castor’s son
Deiotarus Philadelphus received Paphlagonia. Polemon, having to
surrender Lycaonia to Amyntas and his possessions in Tracheia to
Cleopatra, was given in return Pontus beyond the Iris river, with
Phazemonitis, Armenia Minor and Colchis; while Archelaus, son of the
hereditary priest-ruler of Comana, acquired Cappadocia on the depar-
ture or death of its king, Ariobarzanes’ brother Ariarathes X. Cleopatra
was also given part of Crete, although Antony claimed to have found a
Caesarian decree freeing it. The remaining cities were left to govern
themselves and their territories.

Ill. THE AUGUSTAN RESTORATION?

Octavian’s estimate of the eastern regions that came under his sway after
Actium and the decisions he took about their future government were
based in part on autopsy, as he passed through Asia Minor in 30 B.c. and
wintered on Samos, while his further journey to Italy was broken at
Corinth. Under the considered arrangements established in 27 only
minor adjustments were made to the overall system devised by Antony,
with two areas now brought under direct Roman control: Crete (only
Lappa and Cydonia keeping their freedom) and Cyprus, which had no
privileged cities.

There were further distinctions to be made: were any of the provincial
areas to have Augustus as their governor, with his legate acting on the
spot, or were they to be left to other senators selected on seniority and by
the lot? Which of these latter, the ‘public’ provinces, were to have ex-
consuls as their governors? The answers were determined by past
tradition, present and especially military needs, and the princeps’ own

7 Strab. xiv.3.3—9 (665cf). 5 Dio xix.32.4f; Cic. PAi/. 11.97, with Sanders 1982 (E 871) 5.
9 See especially Strab. virt—xvit (3 32-840c), and Dio ti-Lvi.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

648 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

security. All the areas were entrusted to governors selected by seniority
and the lot except Cyprus. That was a place where a governor might see
action, unruly perhaps after its second takeover by Rome; but the
trouble it could cause was minor and in 23 or 22 it was returned to the lot,
an unpromising assignment for its proconsuls; the copper-mines were to
be handed over on lease to a client monarch, Herod of Judaea.!© Even
Macedonia was normally to bea public province, although /egati Augusti
are also found there.!! Greece was detached from Macedonia in 27 and
became the separate senatorial province of Achaea, including Aetolia,
Acarnania, part of Epirus, and the Cyclades, probably with Corinth as
the main seat of government. In spite of cultural and economic ties with
Athens, the islands and Asia Minor, Crete was united with Cyrene as
another province for proconsuls of praetorian status. Not Cnossus,
which had had land worth 12,000 sesterces a year assigned to Capua in
compensation for territory lost to veterans in 36 and which now itself
became a colony,!? but pro-Roman Gortyn, in the south of the island and
more convenient for commuting governors, was the administrative
centre. In our second region, western Asia Minor, Bithynia likewise and
the parts of Pontus that still belonged to the province were.assigned to
another proconsul of praetorian status, but wealthy Asia was declared
consular and in 27 became one of the two plum posts that the Senate
could offer ex-consuls, the other being Africa, which had a legion but
fewer amenities. The Lycian federation, whose prudent administration
was admired by Strabo,!3 had earned and retained nominal autonomy.
The federation employed a sophisticated system of proportional rep-
resentation on its administrative bodies, the electoral assembly and
council.

How much was meant by the freedom accorded to leagues like the
Lycian and that of the free Laconians (Eleutherolacones), to whole
islands like Corcyra, to individual cities like Delphi, Athens and
Nicopolis (some, like Mytilene,'* were in possession of treaties too), is a
question. Theoretically enclaves exempt from the governor’s jurisdic-
tion, they still had to reckon with the emperor. Augustus intervened in
Athens and Sparta, where down to about z B.c. he had relied on a
partisan, C. Iulius Eurycles, son of a privateer, to guide the state in his
own and Rome’s interests; he actually deprived Thessaly and Cyzicus of
freedom altogether. Cyzicus lost its freedom for five years for executing
Romans, though a proconsul of Asia declared Romans subject to local

10 Dio urv.4.1; Joseph. AJ xtv.128.
| Tarius Rufus, cos. 16 8.c.: EJ? 268; L. Piso, cos. 15 B.c.: EJ? 199 with R. Syme, Adsen des V1.
Intern. Kong. fitr gr. und lat. Epigr. Miinchen 1972, Vestigia xvii (Munich, 1973) 595f. Cf. ch. 10, n. 9, ch.
I . .
“ es for date and interpretation, see Rigsby 1976 (E 867) 322-30.
13 Strab. xtv.3.2 (664c). 4 EJ? 307.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTAN RESTORATION 649

law on Chios. Other free cities learnt the lesson: in 6 B.c. Cnidus
recognized the princeps’ jurisdiction in a local homicide case.!5 The
governors of unarmed provinces spent much time on jurisdiction, going
on circuit round the assize centres (although no circuit is attested in
Crete); in Asia the task was alleviated by having the conventus centres on
the coast or on the highway that led from Ephesus over the plateau to
Cilicia.

Considering the third region, Octavian no more than Antony took it
to be ready for direct Roman rule. Already during the tour of 30-29 he
had made it clear that the dispositions of 36 would not necessarily be
changed, although there had to be adjustments and it took a decade to
achieve stability. Loyalty to Rome and himself brought rewards, but
loyalty to Antony was not an unforgivable offence; indeed, it promised
well, if it could be transferred to the new master. Amyntas of Galatia, like
Deiotarus Philadelphus of Paphlagonia and Cleon of Gordiucome, who
was promoted to the priesthood of Comana Pontica, secured confirma-
tion by changing sides before Actium, and received part of Cilicia
Tracheia. But Archelaus of Cappadocia was not displaced and, despite
internal efforts to unseat him, retained his underdeveloped but lucrative
and strategically important kingdom until a.p. 17, taking over in
Tracheia after Amyntas’ death. Polemon I of Pontus lost Armenia Minor
to Artavasdes, a displaced claimant to the Parthian throne, but was to
remain the chief support of Rome in the north of Asia Minor. He kept
the southern shore of the Black Sea (an area that had been strengthened
with settlements official and unofficial at Heraclea Pontica — a Caesarian
venture that had not survived — and Sinope, which became Colonia Iulia
Felix in 47), Colchis, and the mines behind Pharnacea. Polemon was less
successful in his charge of keeping the Bosporan kingdom on the
northern side of the sea under Roman control, and perished there in 8
s.c. He was succeeded in his Anatolian possessions by his widow,
Pythodoris of Tralles (she died in a.p. 7—8). In one of the marriages that
created for Augustus a nexus of dynastic families and a supply of
potential client rulers who were born to the job, Roman citizens, and
educated at Rome, Pythodoris’ daughter Antonia Tryphaena was given
to King Cotys of Thrace — whose sons were also to become rulers in Asia
Minor; she herself went on to marry Archelaus of Cappadocia.

Only in minor principalities did Octavian assert a conqueror’s rights.
At Heraclea Pontica, where Antony’s nominee Adiatorix had massacred
Caesar’s colonists, there had to be a change, but the tyrant’s elder son
Dyteutes was given a compensating position, the priesthood left vacant
through the untimely death of Cleon. Nicias the tyrant of Cos had to pay
for his patron’s depredations; at ‘free’ Tarsus the Antonian dynast and

1S Dio Liv.7.6, 23.7 (Cyzicus); EJ? 317 (Chios); 312 (Cnidus).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

650 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

poet Beithys was replaced by Augustus’ old tutor Athenodorus; and the
kingdom of Hierapolis Castabala was kept from its natural heir, the son
of the late Tarcondimotus Philantonius, until 20 B.c. The same year saw
Augustus achieving a stable settlement of Commagene, probably at his
third attempt. The regime of the new ruler and his son Antiochus III
survived until a.p. 17, like that of Archelaus and Tarcondimotus
Philopator. Archelaus’ kingdom was enlarged in 20 B.c. by the addition
of Armenia Minor on the death of its ruler, and the Teucrids of Olba, the
Cilician city devoted to Zeus, now resumed the priestly and secular
power that their forbear, Aba the protégé of Antony, had lost.

The core of the system was the Galatian kingdom, for its size, and
because the main route from Asia to Syria passed through it. Not far to
the south of that route was the untamed mountain area of Pisidia, which
disjoined the plateau from Pamphylia. Amyntas lost his life carrying out
the duties of his position. The Homanadenses of Pisidia captured and
killed him, and by the end of 25 B.c. Augustus had created a third
province in the peninsula, Galatia, of which only a part was inhabited by
the Gallic tribes of the Tectosages and Tolistobogii (west of the Halys)
and Trocmi (east of the river). The unwieldy kingdom was incorporated
wholesale, with the exception of central Tracheia. Galatia like all newly
acquired provinces was under the charge of Augustus, who sent a legate
to deal with his new responsibility. M. Lollius had not yet held the
consulship, but some later governors under Augustus were to be of
consular rank and until a.p. 6 the province probably had a garrison of
one legion (VII Macedonica) or even two.!¢

The particularly dangerous area of Pisidia was put under guard in 25
B.c. by the foundation of six veteran colonies, the chief being Pisidian
Antioch. In 6 B.c. a road was constructed, the Via Sebaste, to link them,
and probably within the next two or three years (rather than beforehand)
the forty-four caste/la of the Homanadenses were captured by the
distinguished governor of Galatia P. Sulpicius Quirinius, and the tribe
broken up. It was not a complete pacification of southern Asia Minor: a
rising was put down in A.D. 6 but Quirinius had done the main work and
it was not necessary to put the province under another consular
governor, as far as is known, until Cn. Domitius Corbulo took command
under Nero.!”

When in 6 B.c. Deiotarus Philadelphus or his heir died, not only
eastern Paphlagonia but Phazemonitis was joined to it. With the
accession three years later of the region south of Phazemonitis and east of
Galatia (including the city of Sebastopolis) another district hitherto

16 Dio tn1.26.3 seemingly implying that Pamphylia was assigned to a governor of its own; but see

Syme 1937 (E 882) 227-31, Garrison: Mitchell 1976 (E 854).
Quirinius: Levick 1967 (£ 851) 24~41; 203-14; A.D. 6: Dio Lv.28.3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTAN RESTORATION G51

under a dynast came into the province, making it the same size as Asia
and twice that of Bithynia. The following year Amasia too passed from
dynastic control into the province of Pontus, but eastern Pontus
remained under the widow of Polemon I.

These were acute administrative decisions, taken some in the first
months after the victory at Actium, others in response to sudden crises,
others again after mature reflection. As the responsibility of one man and
his advisers they may be considered as part of a policy, that of the gradual
advance of direct Roman rule, when that was safe and profitable. But
these decisions did not themselves solve the political, social and
economic problems that Octavian inherited from the period of the
revolution. Overall it is true to say that Roman rule was not popular in
the Greek-speaking provinces and many communities (Athens is a single
but the most distinguished example) had three times committed them-
selves to the losing side in civil war. Economic problems stemmed in
part from these wars and, in Greece especially, from the Actium
campaign — Plutarch’s great-grandfather used to tell how the entire male
citizen population of Chaeronea was carrying grain down to the sea
under the whips of Antony’s agents when the news of the battle arrived
and ‘saved the city’!8 — but also from longer term causes. If they could be
relieved, political problems might also diminish, but there was an
irreducible dissonance between the realistic, power-orientated Roman
view of the empire and the idea of Greek po/eis as to their position in the
world. In a work that can be dated nearly as late as a century after
Augustus’ death Plutarch had to warn his Greek readers to forget what
their ancestors had achieved as sovereign peoples in the Persian Wars of
the fifth century B.c.!9 The regime of Augustus did not succeed in
putting an end to anti-Roman feeling and prophecies that foretold the
end of Roman rule, but here again, although loyalty was rewarded
(Hybreas, the rhetor of Mylasa who had resisted Labienus, won Roman
citizenship and a high priesthood of Augustus, and the descendants of
Zeno of Laodicea have been seen benefiting from his staunchness),
Augustus did his best for reconciliation, and his first acts included
distributing grain to the cities and remitting their debts.”

Greece and Asia Minor were to continue to receive personal attention
from the princeps and his family. In 23 B.c. Agrippa was in the East, able
to take authoritative decisions, while Augustus himself returned in 21,
carrying out an inspection of Asia Minor and spending the winters of
21-20 on Aegina and 20-19 on Samos. The East fell once again to
Agrippa’s care between 18 and 13 and this time he saw more of it than the

18 Plut. At. 68.4.
19 Plut. Praec. reip. ger. 17 (Mor. 814C), dated by C.P. Jones, JRS 56 (1966) 72.
2% Dio Chrys. xxx1.66.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

652 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

island of Lesbos. But for a last-minute refusal it would have been in
Tiberius’ charge from Gto 1 B.c. (he already knew Asia Minor from his
mission to Armenia in 20 B.c.). As it was, Gaius Caesar was there from 1
B.c. until his death in a.D. 4. Thirteen years later came another Caesar
with imperium maius, Germanicus.

Whether close at hand or in Rome or the western provinces, Augustus
and his successors were accessible to embassies (for the cities in their own
estimation were conducting diplomacy) bearing letters and oral
requests, as they were also to private individuals. Strabo tells how in 29
B.c. the tiny fishing community of Gyarus went to make representations
to their new ruler about its tax burdens.?! Before he had been established
as princeps for more than a period of months Augustus had been
approached in Spain by parties from all three regions with which we are
concerned: the Thessalian League and Archelaus were engaged in
litigation, as was Tralles, a city of Asia which had also suffered
earthquake damage, along with Thyatira, Chios, and Laodicea. A
personal friend, the egues Vedius Pollio, was sent to supervise the
restoration of the cities of Asia.”

Besides pleas for help and tax remission, questions of status and
privilege were frequently the subject of embassies, as they had been (and
were to remain) of concern to Aphrodisias: freedom, immunity, grant of
a treaty, asylum rights; even, when communities of humbler status were
involved, the right to become a po/ts at all and to possess the institutions
of a city, above all a city council. Petitions of this last kind must have
been heard with sympathy: the emperors inherited from the hellenistic
monarchs a wish to be immortalized as founders and restorers of cities.
In the time of Augustus himself many towns came to be called Caesarea,
like Tralles, or -caesarea, like Hierocaesarea, in Lydia, once Hiera Kome
(the sacred village), Sebastopolis, Sebaste, or -sebaste. Not all belong to
areas under direct rule: they were creations of, or were renamed by, client
rulers, like Caesarea Mazaca, capital of Cappadocia, Kayseri to this day,
or Caesarea Anazarbus, refounded in 9 B.c. probably by Tarcondimotus
Philopator.

Greece in particular needed help. It had not suffered as parts of Asia
Minor had done, but its natural resources were more meagre and the
wealth that comes from empire had eluded Athens and Sparta three
centuries previously. The prospect before it was one of economic
competition with regions such as Italy and Spain which were better able
to produce the same crops and manufactures. Strabo on Arcadia,
Messenia anid Laconia repeats a story of depopulation already told in
general terms by earlier writers; he says that except for Tanagra and

2 Strab. x.5.1 (485C).
2 Suet. Tib. 6; Strab. xu. (579C); Agathias, 11.17; Sutherland and Kraay 1975 (B 359) 1363.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTAN RESTORATION 653

Thespiae the cities of Boeotia (which had suffered heavily from Sulla and
where the flooding of Lake Copais had played its part: a warning not to
expect uniform conditions even over a single province) had become little
more than villages or (in the case of Oropus and two other cities) fallen
into ruin. Arcadia, Aetolia and Acarnania are given over to ranching like
Thessaly, and the copper-mines of Euboea had given out like the silver
of Laurion. Looking back a century and a half later Pausanias wrote that
the fortunes of Greece reached their nadir between the fall of Corinth
and the reign of Nero.”3

It is not surprising, then, that Roman intervention bordered on the
invasive. A special effort had been made at Caesar’s instance to restore
Corinth by colonizing what remained of the city destroyed in 146 B.c.
with civilian settlers from Rome under the name Laus Iulia Corinthien-
sium. The colonists, including freedmen as they did, were not well
thought of, but by 7-3 B.c. Corinth was once more in charge of the
biennial Isthmian games, as well as celebrating quadrennial Caesareia;
and the colonists were to become thoroughly assimilated.24 Another
colony was founded on the Gulf at Dyme at about the same time,
reinforcing Pompey’s settlement of ex-pirates there. But nearly three
decades later a new colony at Patrae acquired territory across the water
and incorporated villages close to it, so that Dyme was completely
eclipsed. Patrae was to be the centre of the manufacture and export of
flax.25

But Augustus’ personal creation in Greece was an entirely new city,
Nicopolis, which he established near the site of the battle of Actium
through a synoecism of surrounding peoples: Ambracia, Amphilochian
Argos and Alyzia became dependencies. It was an artificial entity in an
undeveloped area, and must have uprooted some of the country
population, but the festival it celebrated brought visitors to its two
harbours, business and revenue; it began to grow rapidly, a precocious
harbinger of the Greco-Roman culture of the second century.

New and redeveloped cities could not usurp Athens’ artistic and
intellectual primacy. That depended on her past, as current archaism in
art, architecture and epigraphy showed. A mecca for students, tourists
and devotees of religion, she also exported works of art and derived a

2 Strab. virt.7.5-8.3 (388C); 1x.2.16-18 (406); x.1.8-10 (447¢); cf. Polyb. xxxv1.17.5. Wallace
1979 (E 886) 173-8, confirms; Dr S. Alcock draws attention to Bintliff and Snodgrass 1985 (E£ 816);
see also Baladié 1980 (£ 812) 313f. But Dr Alcock rightly warns against taking what may bea literary
topos, a moralizing tone, or disregard for contemporary Greeks too much on trust: she draws
attention (e.g.) to N.K. Petrochilos, Roman Attitudes to the Greeks (Athens, 1974) 63-7; Pausanias:
vitr7z.1, with Baladié 1980 (2 812) 323.

24 Strab. vi11.6.20 (378¢); (381C); hellenization: [Dio Chrys.] xxxvi. 26.

25 Strab. vuit.7.5 (387C¢).

% Strab. vi1.7.6—-7 (325); N. Purcell, “The Nicopolitan synoecism and Roman urban policy’,
Proceedings of the First international Symposium on Nicopolis (1984).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

654 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

notorious income, the more valuable now that her silver-mines were
exhausted, from selling her citizenship: “Ten sacks of charcoal imported
and you too will be a citizen; if you bring a pig as well you’re
Triptolemus himself’, wrote Automedon.?7

Connexions with Athens, as well as with other Greek cities, were
sought after by rulers within the Roman sphere of influence and by
literary men. Antony had shown respect for Athens in spite of her
support for Pompey and the Liberators. He and Octavia had been hailed
as Theoi Euergetae and the aristocrats he had put in power in 38 B.c.
were grateful for that and for his return of Aegina and other islands, with
the revenue they brought.

Augustus’ treatment of Athens was paternalistic. He showed his
displeasure with her by residing at Aegina for part of a winter (22-21)
and by freeing that island, and Eretria, from paying tribute to Athens.
He also forbade the citizenship sales. The Athenians made up for the loss
of revenue by granting foreigners the right to have statues erected in the
city, but the statues were not always freshly carved for the individual
honorand. For exceptional benefactions there were choicer honours: C.
Iulius Nicanor of Hierapolis in Syria, a poet who restored the island of
Salamis to Athens at his own expense, earned the titles of New Homer
and New Themistocles. Embarrassing or invidious, they were later
expunged.28

In spite of periods of estrangement, Athens benefited from Augustus’
generosity. Tesserae found in the city29 reveal that she had been included
in the grain distributions of 31 and Augustus’ reign saw the reinstitution
of Athens’ embassy to Delphi, on a more modest scale than before, as the
Dodecas. There was also considerable building activity, the restoration
of sanctuaries in Attica, perhaps also in the Piraeus. In the city itself
Augustus personally, on appeal from an embassy led by Eucles of
Marathon, had by 20 B.c. accepted responsibility for the completion of
the Roman market; in the old Agora Agrippa built his Odeion, moving
the temple of Ares from outside the city into juxtaposition with the new
building, and a new set of baths was constructed outside the old Agora.
The overall conception and detail of the complex alike showed the
influence of Roman ideas, in particular echoing the Forum Augusti and
the temple of Mars Ultor; the buildings left little room for the vigorous
public activity of the past.%°

Augustus was not insensitive to Athenian susceptibilities. He was

27 Dio tiv.7.2f, with G.W. Bowersock, CQ NS 14 (1964) 124f; Anth. Pal. x1.319.
2% Dio Chrys. xxx1.1.6; IG 11? 3786-9, etc., with Jones 1978 (E 1020) 226-8, reaffirming an
Augustan date. 29 See Rostovtzeff 1903 (E 870).

30 Shear 1981 (E873) 361; Thompson 1987 (F 593) 4-9, for imperial political interpretation of the |
reconstruction of Ares, see Bowersock 1984 (c 40) 173.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTAN RESTORATION 655

initiated at Eleusis in 31 and about four years later the city is found
beginning to issue a coinage that does not bear his head on the obverses.
This ‘autonomous’ coinage continued until the reign of Gallienus; the
privilege was enjoyed also by Corcyra, Delphi, Sparta and Corinth. In
return Athens did not stint honours to Augustus and his family. A round
Ionic temple on the Acropolis which may have been influenced by the
temple of Vesta at Rome, though its order is modelled on the Classical
Erechtheum, belongs to the decade immediately following his accession
to sole power; Augustus is Theos on a dedication made at Delphi, a
decree of the Council of Six Hundred resolved in 27-26 to celebrate his
birthday (a day already associated with the restoration of freedom), and
the ephebes held a festival called the Augustan Contest. The moving of
the temple of Ares may be connected with the imperial cult, for in A.D. 2
Gaius Caesar, then in the East, was honoured under that namé.3!
Eucles was a member of the oligarchy that emerged in Augustan
Athens. He succeeded his father as supervisor of the construction of the
Roman market, held the positions of archon and strategos and five times
acted as priest of Apollo in the Dodecas. The stability of the oligarchy is
suggested by the fact that the same three men held the leading positions
in that embassy on all five occasions of its dispatch under Augustus.
Discontent remained in Greece. In a.p. 6, according to Cassius Dio, it
was prevalent in cities throughout the Roman world. At a date
unknown, (Cassius) Petreius, son of a loyal Caesarian, was burned alive
in Thessaly, and the district lost its freedom.3? In the Peloponnese even
Eurycles had to be exiled in about 2 B.c.: he certainly involved himself in
eastern Mediterranean politics, visiting both Archelaus of Cappadocia
and Herod of Judaea, perhaps also in imperial court intrigue, and it was
claimed that he had disturbed the cities of Achaea.33 At Athens the
swivelling round of Athena’s statue to face west and her spitting blood,
which heralded a visit from Augustus (probably that of 21), were no
good signs, and unrest is attested in A.D. 13, presumably on the part of
the less well-off members of society; it was fatal to its leaders. Athens did
not enjoy good repute under the Empire. When the whole province
joined Macedonia two years later in complaining, not only about taxes,
but about the cost of maintaining the proconsuls in their state, it must
have been the upper classes.who took the lead. The two episodes, which
ended in the transfer of Achaea and Macedonia to the jurisdiction of the
governor of Moesia, were connected, though it was probably not the

3! Delphi: J. Bousquet, BCH 85 (1961) 88-go; birthday: IG 11/111? 1071; ephebes: 1069; CLA 111
444. 32 Dio Lv.28.2; see Bowersock 1965 (E 818) 280-2.
33 Strab. viir.5.5—6 (366c), with Bowersock 1961 (E 817) and 1984 (c 40).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

656 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

unrest that induced Senate and emperor to make the transfer.>4 Econ-
omic problems affecting all classes were probably only mitigated with
the establishment of peace in 30 B.c. They may be illustrated from an
inscription of A.D. 1-2, which shows Lycosura in Arcadia unable to
attract competitors for its games in an Olympic year, and in debt to the
provincial fiscus because of crop failure.35

As Roman armies advanced north and east in the Balkans, necessitat-
ing the creation of a new province, Moesia, Greece fell further behind
the market constituted by legions and auxiliaries and became ever more a
backwater. One of her most important exports, marble, which came
from Euboea, Attica, Laconia and Paros, was in any case in the hands of
the state; imperial marks begin in a.p. 17. Athens became more
prosperous under Augustus, but her ceramics were giving way even at
home to Arretine ware and her cheap lamps could hold only the domestic
market.

That the provinces were able to appeal in concert shows that the
leagues of the classical and hellenistic periods, created to deal with
problems and powers too great for individual cities, still had a role to
play in the absence of a provincial £oinon such as we shall find in Asia and
Bithynia. The Achaean League, though much smaller that its earlier
namesake, which had been dissolved after the catastrophe of 146 B.c.,
and representing only twelve towns in south-east Thessaly and on the
north coast of the Peloponnese, including Elis and Sicyon, must have
acted with the Panhellenic League of Free Laconians (Eleutherola-
cones), containing twenty-four cities whose freedom from Spartan rule
had been granted, or more probably confirmed, by Augustus. In
Thessaly another league survived, centring on Larissa, its council
representing towns in proportion to their size and exercising consider-
able authority in local affairs; and under Augustus the constitution of the
Delphic Amphictiony had Athens, Delphi and the emperor’s own
Nicopolis sending delegates to each session (respectively one, two and
ten), while the remaining members were represented in rotation (Mace-
donia and Thessaly by two each).36 Nicopolis’ dominance did not
survive: by Pausanias’ own time it was on a par with Macedonia and
Thessaly with six votes. Other districts had minor leagues that survived:
those of the Phocians, Boeotians, Magnetes and Arcadians. Crete too,

¥* Blood: Dio trv.7.3, with Bowersock 1964 (C 38) 120f. Discontent at the end of Augustus’
reign: Eus.-Jer. 170 Helm (146f Schoene), with Graindor 1927 (E 832) 41-3. Transfer requested:
Tac. Ann. 1.76.4, with IG v (2), 268, forimplied dissatisfaction with earlier proconsuls. For the view
that the unrest led to the transfer, see G.W. Bowersock, Entretiens Hardt 33 (Geneva, 1987) 292.
Athens’ ill repute: Dio Chrys.xtvttt.13.

35 Smallwood 1967 (B 284) 404, with A.J. Gossage, ABSA 49 (1954) 5 1-6 (l owe these references
to the kindness of Dr Lintott). % Paus. x.8.3, with Daux 1975 (E 823) 352.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTAN RESTORATION 657

land of a hundred cities in Homer’s time,3’ had a Aoinon, of twenty cities
only as a result of amalgamation and the absorption of one by another.

But it was the province-wide organization of western Asia Minor that
scored the first and paradigm diplomatic success of the new age by
establishing a firm relationship with the ruler when he was in the area in
29 B.c.38 Octavian on Samos received delegations from both Asia and
Bithynia, the first representing an organization of long standing, the
peoples and tribes in Asia and those individuals judged friends of the
Roman People, or in short the £oinon of the Greeks. Already known from
the nineties B.c., when they were doing honour to the proconsul Mucius
Scaevola, they had a fully-fledged council by 48 at the latest and were
addressed by Antony in a letter giving permission to the Association of
Victorious Athletes to commemorate its privileges on a bronze tablet.%?

Octavian accepted the temples offered by these embassies on con-
dition that Rome too received cult. Roman citizens in the provinces were
to devote themselves to Rome and the Deified Iulius at Ephesus and
Nicaea; the more modern Pergamum and Nicomedia were chosen for
Octavian’s temples. Partial acceptance of the honours showed the cities
of Asia Minor that Octavian was well disposed, though not theirs
outright. Prominent individuals benefited from the cult through the
opportunities for self-advertisement that management offered them, and
the city populations of Pergamum and Nicomedia and other large cities
through the festivals laid on and the crowds that they attracted. Similar
provincial £oina came into existence as the benefits were perceived or as
new provinces such as Galatia were created.

Homage to proconsuls of Asia did not long continue: the last known
to have received it was C. Marcius Censorinus who died in office in A.D.
2. They were not even accorded the honorific titles of Saviour and
Founder, which likewise became a prerogative of the princeps, the last to
bear them again being Censorinus. Similarly, outstanding local dignitar-
ies ceased to be offered cult; the last known was Artemidorus of Cnidus.
The divine honours which had been accorded to Theophanes of
Mytilene, Pompey’s secretary and biographer, contributed to the down-
fall of his descendants in A.D. 33.4

For his part Octavian’s first concern in the years after his victory must
have been the restoration of prosperity, and so taxability. Recovery was
promoted by the resumption at Ephesus and Pergamum between 28 and
18 of the issuing of coins, the cistophori, tetradrachms last struck by
Antony in 39 B.c. The quantities now issued were not to be approached

37 Hom. Ii. 11.649. 38 Dio 11.20.6-8. % Reynolds 1982 (B 270) 5; EJ? 300.
40 Ane. Greek Inser. in the British Mus. 787, with Price 1984 (F 199) 48 (Artemidorus); Tac. Aan.
vt.18.3—5 (Theophanes’ posterity).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

658 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

again until Hadrian’s time. Octavian was also attentive to the plaints of
cities which he knew to have suffered as a result of the Parthian invasion,
and his ready aid after the earthquake of 27 was again available to Cyprus
when it was striken in 15 B.C., after which Paphos took the princeps’ name
and adopted a new calendar, and to Cos.*! Not everyone gained: on his
visit of 21-20 Augustus did indeed make gifts of money to some
communities of Asia and Bithynia, but he imposed additional burdens
on others.4?

Imperial attentions were more easily secured if a community pos-
sessed such an advocate at court as Tralles did when it sought help after
the earthquake of 27;43 Chaeremon may have been brother-in-law to
Polemon I and he was certainly a member of a notable pro-Roman,
although also previously pro-Pompeian and pro-Antonian, family. The
practice, valuable to both sides, of granting favoured individuals and
families privileged access to the ruling authority, was to continue. More
generally, it was to ancestral connexions that Ilium owed the rebuilding
of its temple to Athena.“ Not surprisingly cities made every effort to
bring themselves to the princeps’ attention through embassies and
patrons known to him, as they had to that of earlier statesmen and
dynasts. By 9 B.c. Augustus’ benefactions were such that the proconsul
Fabius Maximus could tell the £oinon that they would never be surpassed,
and it agreed to make the princeps’ birthday the start of the new year in
Asia.45

Homage from individual cities also went along with the benefactions,
acknowledging or encouraging them. Some cities combined it with
reconstruction: Ephesus had its upper square modified to incorporate
imperial temples and a stoa basilike; others, notably those of Lydia,
adopted the year of the Battle of Actium as their new era. Twenty years
after the institution of the provincial cult ten Roman assize centres had
their own temples, and together thirty-four cities in the whole of Asia
Minor are known to have celebrated Augustus’ cult, including even such
remote places as Gangra. In eleven of them, including Mylasa, he shared
it with that of Rome, his cult an addition to hers. Here too prominent
individuals benefited, as on Chios, where the descendants of the founder
participated in the ceremonial.4’

Although the cult was the creation of organized communities, notably
of poleis, and some uniformity may have resulted from guidance offered
by governors, it was not confined to provinces or acquired only on
provincialization. Lycian Xanthus had a temple of ‘Caesar’, Myra and

41 EJ? 303 of 31 B.c.; Dio trv.23.7 (Cyprus); Eus.-Jer. 168 Helm (144f Schoene) (5 B.c.), with
S.M. Sherwin-White, Ancient Cos (Hypomnemata 31), (Gottingen, 1978) 148.

42 Dio tiv.7.5. 43 Agathias, 11.17. “ IGRR w 202. 45 EJ? 98.

See Price 1984 (F 199) 140. 47 IGRR wv 947, with Price 1984 (F 199) 62.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTAN RESTORATION 659

Tlos called Augustus Benefactor and Saviour (or Founder) of the whole
universe.*8 Indeed, the foundation of a festival in the princeps honour
played its part in maintaining inter-city connexions and diplomacy.
Mytilene announced the establishment of games in honour of Augustus,
and copies of the decree were to be set up in Pergamum, Actium,
Brundisium, Tarraco, Massilia, Antioch and elsewhere.*?

In Asia Minor as in Greece Augustus encouraged the development of
city life, more by way of innovation here than in restoration; even in the
province of Asia it was lacking in remoter, inland districts. The
synoecism of Sebaste in Phrygia, attested in a verse inscription, may be
paralleled at Caesarea Trocetta in Lydia.5° This is not to be compared
with Nicopolis. The princeps merely acceded to the wish of leading
inhabitants of a district for organization and status as poleis. A more
gradual development was one by which an existing capital of the oinon
of a number of villages became a city within a territory: in Mysia the
Abbaeitae crystallized into the cities of Julia Ancyra, Synaus and
Tiberiopolis. The people who were coining under the name of ‘Cilbiani
about Nicaea’ in Nero’s reign became the ‘Nicaeans Cilbiani’ or ‘in the
Cilbian region’ only under Septimius Severus.5! Changes of name could
easily be made and did not necessarily involve changes of substance,
physical or in organization: so at Caesarea Anazarbus in Cilicia Pedias,
and Caesarea, later Germanice, in Bithynia, inhabited by former serfs of
the Mygdonian tribe; Iuliopolis, the former Gordiucome, never
amounted to much. What the princeps contributed is uncertain; what he
spurred others on to do may have been almost as important.

Augustan intervention in Asia and Bithynia by official settlement and
colonization was not conspicuous; the colony of Alexandria Troas was
exceptional. But there were independent immigrants. After the Sullan
settlement the numbers grew again, and in Cicero’s province of Cilicia a
generation later they were already numerous enough to be subject to a
levy. There was also substantial immigration into mainland Greece,
notably in the Peloponnese where they acquired landed property on a
large scale and formed a persistent element in their communities.
Romans formed a relatively wealthy stratum in the cities in which they
settled, but they do not seem to have held aloof from their neighbours:
Roman citizens collaborated with natives in the restoration of Messene;
L. Vaccius Labeo of Cyme, who endowed the gymnasium under
Augustus,°*2 is only one of many such Roman benefactors. Intermarriage
between Romans and local aristocrats was soon to produce candidates

48 IGRR 11 482 (Xanthus); 346 (Tlos) 719 (Myra). 49 IGRR tv 39.

% IGRR tv 682. 51 See Jones 1971 (D 96) 78.

52 Immigration: Wilson 1966 (a 106) 127-31; effect on Strabo: Baladié 1980 (E 812) 195; Messene:
Bull. ép, 1966, 200; Labeo: IGRR tv 1302; land-owning: IG v 1. 1432.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

8007 ‘ssorg AszaatuQ aeSprquieg © sUTTUO saroisty espuquiey

662 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

for the Senate and at a humbler level the elaborate and idiosyncratic
funerary monuments of such a town as Aezani were to house the
descendants of Italian immigrants alongside the bearers of Greek,
Macedonian and Phrygian names.*3 When the death of Roman citizens at
Cyzicus led to loss of freedom the victims were not necessarily immi-
grants: they could equally have been enfranchised natives.

Business and immigrant landowners, part of whose extensive proper-
ties were destined eventually to go to the substantial imperial holdings,
are to be found further east in the peninsula, but there Augustus pursued
a more active policy of urbanization, notably in the Galatian province
and especially round the area in which Amyntas met his death and on
important routes. Besides the six veteran colonies founded in 23 B.c.,
Numismatic evidence reveals other colonies in the Galatian province
founded as early as Augustus’ reign: Germe in Galatia proper, Iconium
on the border of Phrygia and Lycaonia, Ninica in Cilicia Tracheia, on the
route south from Iconium via Lystra and Laranda over the Taurus to
Seleucia on Calycadnus; at Ninica and Iconium the colonies seem to have
been part of double communities of which the native components were
to find advancement as Claudiconium and Claudiopolis.** Further,
unofficial colonists thought to have been settled by Augustus on ager
publicus at Attalia, where Roma Archegetis, the Foundress, was wor-
shipped (unless the settlement there was a spontaneous development on
public land sold off to them) and at Isaura would also have helped to
strengthen the Roman presence in composite communities.55 But there
was voluntary change as well: Pliny writes of the 195 ‘peoples and
tetrarchies in Galatia,56 and he is borne out by the relatively small
number of cities coining there, less than sixty. The Gauls themselves,
once the scourge of Asia Minor, began to move into line. In token of
loyalty they referred to themselves as Sebasteni, each tribe at first
ignoring the township on which it centred. Then they are found as the
Sebasteni Trocmi Taviani (Tolistobogii Pessinuntii) with the town’s
name incorporated. The development of Sebaste Ancyra of the Tecto-
sages came quickest: Ancyra was the capital of the new province and the
centre for the provincial cult of Rome and Augustus, with an Augustan
or early Tiberian temple, gladiatorial shows and wild beast hunts. By
Galba’s time it was coining for itself. Finally the Gauls dropped the tribal
name, first at the ancient temple city of Pessinus. Even in Paphlagonia

53 MAMA 1x (Journal of Roman Studies Monograph 4) (London, 1988) 1xf.

5 For Germe see H. von Aulock, ‘Die rémische Kolonie Germa in Galatien und ihre
Minzpragung’, MDAI (I) 18 (1968) 221-37. Iconium and Ninica are argued for by Mitchell 1979 (E
857), on the numismatic evidence proffered by von Aulock 1976 (8 306).

55 Mitchell 1978 (E 855). % Pliny, HN v.146.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONSOLIDATION 663

early urbanization is attested by the name of Caesarea of the
Proseilemmenitae.>?

IV. CONSOLIDATION UNDER THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS

The stable conditions created by Augustus required his successors to be
maintenance engineers in the provinces, adjusting his scheme rather than
making radical alterations, and his immediate successor Tiberius firmly
professed close adherence to Augustan precedent. But the accession of a
new emperor, even one well known in the East as Tiberius was (he
enjoyed divine honours at Nysa by 1 B.c.) and for ten years the
designated heir, a period in which he was being courted even by
relatively unimportant cities such as Aezani, inevitably caused a stir. The
new man could have new friends and favourites; relationships have to be
developed or entered into. So in the Peloponnese, where the Claudii had
hereditary influence, the League of Free Laconians in 15 passed a sacred
law establishing ceremonies in honour of Augustus, Tiberius, Livia,
Germanicus and Drusus, as well as for T. Quinctius Flamininus and the
two local dynasts Eurycles, now posthumously rehabilitated, and his son
Laco, who may have been particular partisans of Tiberius; Laco
continued in favour for another nineteen years. At Paphos on Cyprus the
people were quick to take an oath of loyalty to Tiberius and his blood
line. From the beginning of the next reign there survives another oath
taken at Assos in the Troad, in which play is made with Gaius’ childhood
visit to the city nearly twenty years previously. At Cyzicus Gaius
accepted the local magistracy, the hipparchy, and was designated the
‘New Sun’. These were prudent measures: Gaius had his own ideas
about his position in the empire, different again from Tiberius’ .58
Ironically, in view of his publicly proclaimed adherence to the
Augustan blueprint, it was Tiberius who in the earliest years of his reign
made significant changes in two of the regions with which we are
concerned. The answer that Tiberius and the Senate returned to the
request from Macedonia and Achaea for transfer to imperial rule was
favourable but unflattering. Instead, economy was served: the two
provinces were to have no governor of their own, but were attached to
the province of Moesia. (Already in a.p. 6, when the proconsul died in
office, his province had been divided between his quaestor and his
legate.)59 But the change brought into the open the fact that Macedonia

57 Jones 1971 (D 96) 119 and for Caesarea 168.

$8 EJ? 316 (Nysa); 319 (Aezani); 102, with Bowersock 1961 (gE 817) (Gytheum); 105*, with
Mitford 1960 (e 858) 75—9 (Palaepaphos); GCN 33 (Assos); 401 (Cyzicus).

59 Dio Lv.27.6 (A.D. 6); Tac. Aan. 1. 80.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

664 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

and Achaea were backwaters removed from the scene of action nearer
the Danube.

The unification was followed by the amalgamation of the two main
leagues. The enlarged £oinon (called variously Panachaean, Hellenic and
Panhellenic) went back at least to the end of Tiberius’ reign and
consisted of representatives of Achaea proper, which itself incorporated
a koinon of the Argolis under Augustus or Tiberius, Boeotia, Locris,
Phocis, Doris and Euboea; a number of cities and lesser leagues, such as
the Eleutherolacones and Thessalians, were not included. The Greek
Roina were not as alert as the organizations of Asia and Bithynia — areas
that had been directly controlled by monarchs since the time of the
Persian Empire — to the value of offering cult, but they eventually did so,
electing a high priest as well as a political leader; the earliest signs are
Neronian at latest, the official C. Iulius Spartiaticus, a descendant of
Eurycles and, like all the high priests, a Roman citizen.

The new arrangements lasted until 44, when Claudius returned
Achaea to the jurisdiction of ex-praetors selected by lot.6? So it remained
until Nero, claiming to be the only emperor who was a philhellene,
conferred freedom on Greece on 28 November, probably 67 rather than
66, during his performing tour of the province.® It was a reiteration (not
the first) of Flamininus’ declaration of a quarter of a millennium
previously, but the Greeks appreciated the gesture of recognition and
the abolition of taxes that went with it. Even in Plutarch’s view, that of
an upper-class intellectual in full sympathy with senatorial opinion,
freeing those who were ‘noblest and dearest to the gods’ earned Nero
reincarnation as a singing frog rather than as a viper.

Nero’s cultural philhellenism was genuine and strong. It too was
appreciated. The tour he made (the four great festivals, Pythian,
Olympic, Isthmian and Nemean, were rescheduled so that he might
compete in all) was the first personal visit from a member of the imperial
family since that of Germanicus and Agrippina, when Germanicus had a
commission similar to those previously held by Agrippa, abortively by
Tiberius, and by Gaius Caesar. The respect that Germanicus showed at
Athens in 18, when he visited it after Nicopolis, was set off by the brutal
assertion of Roman supremacy by his coadjutor Cn. Piso. Tiberius
himself was a cultured philhellene and Athens’ benefactor before his
adoption, although Livia apparently attracted more attention than the
emperor. Surprisingly enough Claudius won more dedications than
Nero, more than any emperor between Augustus and Hadrian. A whole

© GCN 361, with Kahrstedt 1950 (£ 846) 7of. 51 GCN 264.
62 Suet. Claud. 25; Dio Lx.24.1.
63 GCN 64. For 67 as the year see Griffin 1984 (C 352) 280, n. 127. & [Plut.] Mor. 567F.

6 Tac. Ann. 1.55.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONSOLIDATION 665

series honours him as Saviour and Benefactor: probably he paid for stairs
leading to the Propylaea, not only adorning the Acropolis but providing
work for quarrymen and craftsmen. Nero contributed a new skene for
the Theatre of Dionysus, which was dedicated to Dionysus Eleutherius
and to the emperor, whose priest and high priests were reserved front
row seats.67 But Nero could not free Athens along with the rest of
Greece: freedom was a privilege she already enjoyed.

The reign of Tiberius, like the last decade of Augustus’ Principate,
had to be one of retrenchment in Italy and perhaps elsewhere. Areas self-
sufficient and exporting would suffer less. Asia and Bithynia came into
that category, as building activity during the reign suggests; Crete too.
Parts of Achaea already in decline did not: at the end of the reign, Boeotia
claimed not to be able to afford an envoy to congratulate Gaius on his
accession.8 Some insight into the collection of taxes — and into the
difficulties that some cities encountered in meeting their obligations — is
given by inscriptions from Messene and Lycosura.%? And Achaea’s
capital, artistic and financial, was diminished when Nero’s agents began
to scour the provinces for works of art in a systematic effort quite
different from the haphazard acquisitiveness of Verres or Antony. The
centres of Greece and Asia known to have suffered were Athens, Delphi,
Olympia, Thespiae and Pergamum. At Athens the imperial agent C.
Carrinas Secundus was made eponymous archon, as if to blunt his zeal.70
There was a certain irony in Nero’s regret, expressed when he freed
Greece, that he could not do it at a time when she was at her peak ~
though his generous act sprang from good will, not mere pity.

A recurrent, even chronic problem was shortage of grain, which had
to be countered at any cost. Even in Asia Minor, where grain was a staple
product, a severe winter could cause difficulties, especially in cities
distant from the sea, where importing supplies would be particularly
expensive. Aspendus in Pamphylia is not far from the sea, but vetch is
said to have been on sale in place of grain there on one occasion under
Tiberius. One of the titles accumulated by Agrippina on her travels with
Germanicus was that of Divine Harvest-bringer, Aeolis, at Mytilene,
like her daughter and namesake who took a place in the imperial
pantheon on Cos as Demeter Harvest-bringer and was shown on city
coinages with corn ears and poppies — similarly too on a panel from the
Sebasteion at Aphrodisias. The divinities would hardly allow their
votaries to go hungry.’!

IG 112 3269, 3271f, 3274. See Shear 1981 (£ 873) 367, n. §2. 67 IG wu? 5034.

& GCN 361. ® IG v 1.1432; 2.516.

% IG ufin? 4188, with Graindor 1931 (E 833) 14f.

1% Aspendus: Philostr. VA 1.15; Mytilene: ILS 8788, IG xi 2.258, with L. Robert, REG 72
(1960) 286ff. Cos: A. Maiuri, Nuova silloge epigr. (Florence, 195 2) 468; coins: BMC Lydia 146, nos. 5 3—
5 (Magnesia by Sipylus); Aphrodisias: JRS 77 (1987) Pl. VII.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

666 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

Greece was more accessible by sea than the interior of Anatolia, but
there were still questions of procurement and distribution, and of the
cost of the operations. Athens had been importing corn since the time of
Pisistratus; there was no imperial revenue to pay for it under the
Principate. A special treasury for the reception of grain was created there
in the reign of Augustus, significantly perhaps under the supervision of
no less an official than a hoplite general. Under Claudius the curator
annonae appears at Corinth, and on one occasion there was a famine in
Greece that took a modius of grain to a price of six didrachms, about eight
times the normal price at Rome.”

The other natural calamity to which both Greece and Asia Minor are
subject is earthquakes. The Roman government did its best to help
wherever they struck. One night in a.p. 17 twelve distinguished
communities of the Hermus basin in Asia fell victim. Sardes suffered
worst and was granted five years’ remission of all taxes as well as a gift of
10 million sesterces from the emperor; Magnesia by Sipylus was held to
have suffered next worst and was compensated accordingly, while the
rest were relieved of tribute for five years and a commissioner was sent to
inspect the damage and help restore it. Six years later it was Aegium,
centre of the Achaean League, and Cibyra, an assize centre of Asia, that
were devastated and granted three years’ remission of tribute on the
initiative of the emperor.’

This generosity, and his pitiless attitude towards officials who
enriched themselves at the expense of provincials — a proceeding that the
people of Asia must have come to regard as almost as inevitable as
natural calamities — won Tiberius popularity; on both fronts he was
following the example of Augustus. The coming of the Principate did
not destroy the hereditary connexions that families such as the Messallae,
Galbae and Pisones had with the East and their natural claim to serve
there, any more than it eliminated the expectations of some senators that
they could reimburse themselves for the cost of attaining office in the
course of their pro-magistracies and even make a profit. The wealth of
Asia was a particular temptation, especially when the fortunes of Italian
senators were in decline. Fierce competition for the province is attested
in the twenties and thirties, made fiercer by Tiberius’ proneness to
prolonging even strictly annual terms of office: P. Petronius held Asia
for about six years, ¢. 29-35; a C. Galba, excluded in 36, killed himself.’4

Envoys even from Achaea had complained about their governors
even under Augustus, but the series of known prosecutions for

72 Treasury: IG mfr? 3504; general: Philostr. VS 526; Corinth: A.B. West, Corinth VILL, 2: the
Latin Inser. (Cambridge, MA, 1931) 83 n.; 86 n. (references to famines); price of grain during a
famine: Eus.-Jer. 181 Helm (A.p. 49). 73 Tac. Aan. 11.47 (A.D. 17); 1.15.1 (23).

7 Vogel-Weidemann 1982 (E 885) 274-80 (Petronius); Tac. Ann. v1.40.3 (Galba).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONSOLIDATION 667

misconduct in Asia begins with a particularly outrageous case, that of
Valerius Messalla Volesus, who during his proconsulship of about 1o—
11 had not only enriched himself but done so with open brutality,
stalking amongst the corpses of 300 men he had executed and preening
himself on a right royal deed. The case of Granius Marcellus, the
proconsul of Bithynia prosecuted in a.p. 15, was unsensational, but
Tiberius’ handing over of his procurator in Asia, Lucilius Capito, for
trial in the Senate in 23 made history and, like the relentless handling of
C. Silanus on the precedent of Volesus the year before, won the emperor
high opinions in Asia.’5

These were the first attested prosecutions conducted at the instance of
the £oinon of Asia, which lost no time in securing permission to erect a
temple to Tiberius, his mother and, Tiberius insisted, the Senate. It was
not until three years later that Smyrna, which had celebrated the cult of
Rome since 195 B.c., was selected from eleven contestants as the site.
When it came to Gaius, Miletus was successful;’6 but by no means all
emperors were honoured in this way: both Claudius and, more surpris-
ingly, Nero were omitted. But a city of the first rank such as Ephesus
might become ‘warden’ (neocorus) of no fewer than three imperial temples
as well as that of its own patron deity. By at least eleven cities too
Tiberius was honoured with cult, becoming ‘the greatest of the gods’ at
Cyzicus.”” After him emperors tended to be objects of cult from the
koinon en bloc, but within this limitation cities went on doing what they
could to attract favourable attention by demonstrating loyalty.78 Their
efforts were not always well judged: what was a community in Lydia
doing with a public area commemorating Gaius’ German campaign, and
why should Amisus in Pontus be honouring Nero, Poppaea and
Tiberius Claudius Britannicus on the same monument??? It was a
different matter when a sophisticated po/is with long-standing connex-
ions with Rome, such as Aphrodisias, embarked on the construction of a
Sebasteion with a processional way between porticoes leading toa raised
temple and of proficient sculptures adorning the complex.®?

The princeps himself was a powerful neighbour to many cities and
individual landowners as he acquired estates, mines and quarries by
purchase, inheritance, or confiscation, or controlling them in virtue of
his role as governor. Patchy at first, especially the relatively isolated
quarries, his estates in Asia Minor were to form large tracts of territory in
the second century. Lucilius Capito’s encroachments on the prerogatives

73 Sen. Ira 11.5.5 (Volesus); Tac. Aan. 1.74 (Marcellus); 1v.15 (Capito); 111.66-8 (Silanus).
76 Tac. Ann. v.55; Gaius’ temple: Dio Lx1x.28.1. 7 SEG w 707.

78 See Price 1984 (F 199) 58.

79 GCN 34 (Kula); 112 (Nero, Poppaea — unless Agrippina is to be read — Britannicus).
8 See Smith 1987 (F 580).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

668 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

of a governor illustrate the growing importance of officials charged with
administering the imperial property and the recognition they were being
accorded. Under a governor of less than the highest seniority or calibre,
such as the proconsul of Bithynia, the procurator’s responsibilities and
his prestige might eclipse those of the pro-magistrate. East-West
communications and increasing wealth made Bithynia more important
than it had seemed under Augustus: the princeps would not leave it all in
the hands of the proconsul. Iunius Cilo, procurator at the end of
Claudius’ reign, managed imperial business there and escorted a deposed
monarch to Rome in 49, winning consular decorations. His subjects
brought charges of extortion against him but he was acquitted and
apparently prorogued. The services of Publius Celer, procurator of Asia
when the Principate changed hands in 54, were political, the murder of a
potential rival of Nero; it was they that saved him from accusations
levelled against him by the provincials, at least long enough for him to
die a natural death. By contrast a determined citizen of Cibyra, which
under Claudius was temporarily detached from Asia and assigned to
Lycia, was able to have an oppressive procurator removed from his
duties of collecting grain from the city.®!

Political considerations were also important in the trials of senators
charged with misconduct. Only the most strenuous efforts secured the
conviction of Nero’s man Cossutianus Capito in 57 for misconduct in
Cilicia; the valuable prosecutor Eprius Marcellus, charged with repetun-
dae in the same year, was acquitted, secured the exile of some of those
who had accused him on behalf of the Lycian Aoinon,82 and lived to return
to Anatolia under Vespasian for a three-year term as governor of Asia.

When Germanicus travelled the coasts of Greece and Asia Minor in
18, he worked to restore places exhausted by internal disputes and
mismanagement on the part of their own magistrates.83 Having paid to
secure the positions they held, members of the ruling class in the cities
sought to recoup their expenditure. This was a failing that Aristotle
remarked in timocracies such as the Romans favoured, and the venality
of Greeks was already commonplace for Polybius and Cicero. A
Claudian proconsul of Asia, Paullus Fabius Persicus, issued a long and
elaborate edict curtailing (he hoped) inefficiency, waste and dishonesty
in the administration of the temple funds established by Vedius Pollio
for the cult of Artemis at Ephesus.® One trick was to lend young slaves
to the temple, where their upkeep would be paid; another to anticipate
temple revenue and speculate with it.

Paullus was a friend of Claudius and knew what was expected of a

81 Tac. Aan. xit.21; Dio Lx.53.5 (Cilo); Tac. Aan. xttt.1.3; 33.1f (Celer); GCN 408 (Cibyra).

% Tac. Ann. xtt1.3 3.36. 83 Tac. Ann. 11.54.2.
84 Arist. Pod. 11.1273; Pol. v1.56.13; Cic. Att, vi.z.5. 8 GCN 380.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONSOLIDATION 669

governor. Others became involved with local malefactors, giving them
protection and an opportunity for blackmail. Those who did not co-
operate could be threatened with the prospect of being passed over when
it came to votes of thanks for their administration. Augustus had already
in A.D. 12 forbidden such votes to be passed within six months of a
governor’s departure (perhaps in the wake of the Volesus Messalla case).
The abuse came to light most blatantly in Neronian Crete, where the
leader of the £oinon, Claudius Timarchus, boasted that it depended on
him whether governors were given votes of thanks. The dispatch of
embassies to express such thanks before the Senate was now banned
altogether ~ for a time.®6

In Crete it seems that the £oinon had acquired a particular ascendancy
in relation to the individual cities, whose coinages ended under Gaius
and were superseded by that of the £oinon (in Cyprus too the currency
became federal). In spite of the failings of city and £oinon officials, which
could not be cured and were to develop further (the history of Crete
under the Julio-Claudians has been called a recital of earthquakes and
trials for extortion; encroachment of magnates on city land is another
failing detectable there),®” the Romans had no alternative. Koina were a
prime means of conveying instructions to the leading men of a province,
of focusing their loyalty and satisfying their ambition. Private clubs were
banned from the time of Caesar and Augustus onwards, as attracting the
lower classes in the cities and otherwise likely to turn into radical
political groups; exceptions were allowed only for those exclusively
religious and social in character, and they had to be licensed. Associa-
tions of boys (ephebes), young men (neo/), and elders (gerousiae), which
were integral parts of the city, and professional associations of men of
respectable standing were a different matter. In 41 the Guild of
Hymnodoi of Asia — choruses who performed at the celebration of the
imperial cult — had occasion to honour Claudius and the privileges of
stage artists (the World-wide Guild of Crowned Victors in the Sacred
Contests of Dionysus and their Fellow-competitors) had already been
granted by Augustus before Claudius guaranteed them in 43 and 48-9.
Athletes too, as Antony’s letter to the £oinon shows, had long been
recognized as a group with legitimate interests and the Itinerant Athletic
Association was careful to inform Claudius in 47 of the successful festival
held in his honour by the kings of Commagene and Pontus.88

As to the success of the provinces of western Asia Minor as a whole,
the Romans can have felt no misgivings. They continued to encourage

8% Tac. Ann. xv.20-2; for Augustus, see Dio Lv1.25.6.

87 See Sanders 1982 (E 871) 132; encroachment: GCN 385; 388.

% GCN 372 (bymnodt); 373 (a) and (b) (Dionysiac artists); EJ? 300 (Antony’s letter); GCN 374
(the Claudian festival).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

670 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

communities who aspired to po/is status. Besides restoring damaged
cities Tiberius allowed two to take his name: one Tiberiopolis was in
Phrygia Epictetus, the other (Pappa) in the Galatian province, on the
borders of Phrygia and Pisidia: within the greater cities both Aphrodis-
ias and Pisidian Antioch had squares named after him.

But it was in eastern Asia Minor, in the third of the regions with which
we are concerned, that Tiberius made his most important changes in the
Augustan political map. Germanicus’ mission to the East in 17-19 had
two main positive purposes: to deal with the Parthians and to establish a
new Roman client on the throne of Armenia Maior. But the visit came at
a time of change for long-standing client states: the deaths of Antiochus
III of Commagene, of Philopator in the kingdom of the Amanus, and, at
Rome where the princeps had summoned him to stand trial before the
Senate (he had faced charges from his subjects on an earlier occasion),
that of the aged Archelaus of Cappadocia.8?

Tiberius made a clean sweep of the client kingdoms. The 85 ,oookm? of
Cappadocia, with its eleven eastern-style ‘satrapies’ — strategiae in Greek —
—and its few cities concentrated in the most westerly of them, required
direct rule. After the preliminary arrangements had been made by a
legate of Germanicus, Q. Veranius, the new province was entrusted to
an equestrian prefect. To make Roman rule more acceptable, taxes were
reduced, but even so Tiberius was able to halve the 1 per cent inheritance
duty on Roman citizens. Commagene was taken over by Q. Servaeus,
another legate, and, like the kingdom of the Amanus, incorporated in the
province of Syria. Only Pythodoris, until her death, Archelaus’ son in
part of Cilicia Tracheia, and the Teucrids of Olba were left in place, and
Olba came to be overshadowed by a new foundation of uncertain date,
Diocaesarea. As far as Cilicia was concerned, it was a wise decision: the
younger Archelaus’ subjects, the Citae, were still giving trouble in 36,
when they refused a census and all its implications, and in 52.9! But some
of Tiberius’ arrangements were reversed by Gaius, a true great-grandson
of Antony who had been brought up at court with eastern royalties. In 38
he returned Commagene to Antiochus (IV), with the addition of eastern
Cilicia, and Pontus to Polemo (II) who also acquired the Teucrid
kingdom when the dynasty died out in 41. Antiochus kept his kingdom,
with one interruption, until 72, Polemo his until 64, when it was annexed
as Pontus Polemoniacus. Gaius assigned Armenia Minor to another
friend and grandson of Pythodoris, Cotys. Whatever his motives, it is
usually agreed that the territories he assigned to clients were well suited
to that form of government; how potently his actions were felt in the
Greek East, is attested by a decree of Cyzicus: ‘Since the new Helios
Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus wished also to illuminate with his

89 See Tac. Ann. 11.42; 56. % Sullivan 1980 (E 879) 921. 91 Tac. Ann. v1.41; XIL.5§.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONSOLIDATION 671

own rays the kingdoms that are the bodyguard of the empire ... even
though the kings, however hard they think, are unable to find appropri-
ate ways of repaying the benefactions conferred on them to show their
gratitude to so great a god, he has restored the sons of Cotys (VIII of
Thrace), Rhoemetalces (III of Thrace), Polemon and Cotys, who were
brought up with him and were his companions, to the kingdoms that
were due to them from their forefathers and ancestors. Reaping the
abundance of his immortal grace, they are greater than their predecessors
in this respect, that they inherited from their fathers, while these men, as
a result of the grace of Gaius Caesar, have become kings to share in the
government of these great gods.’ Small wonder to find Tryphaena,
mother of the kings, in the same document celebrating the cult of
Drusilla the New Aphrodite, and Polemon jointly celebrating the games
with Antiochus IV.%

But Gaius’ donations went against the trend. In 43 direct Roman rule
spread to the south-west corner of Asia Minor when mountainous Lycia,
with its thirty-six cities — the earlier number considerably advanced since
the assessment of Strabo — was annexed, Rhodes also losing its freedom
in the following year. Claudius’ pretext was disorder in the cities and the
killing of Roman citizens, but he allowed an appeal from Rhodes, backed
by the young Nero, in 53.% As far as Lycia’s external independence went
the change was a nominal one; cult had been offered since 188 B.C. to
Roma Thea Epiphanes and to powerful Romans such as Agrippa;
Tiberius’ cult survived until the third century alongside the federal cult
of the Augusti.% But the federated cities now had to pay tribute and the
first praetorian legate, Q. Veranius, doing for Claudius what his father
had done for Germanicus in Cappadocia, seems to have met resistance.%
To loyal subjects Veranius was able to offer the reward of citizenship,
and the new province settled down with Pamphylia, the district joined to
it under the new arrangement, its upper class crystallizing into a nobility
of Lyciarchs and (at least from Vespasian onwards) high priests, who
often served as secretaries of the League, with archiphylax and hierophylax
to guarantee order and collect the tribute. If we are to trust Suetonius,
Lycia regained its freedom some time before Vespasian’s reorganization
of the eastern provinces, either from Nero, after the freeing of Achaea, or
under Galba; but epigraphic evidence suggests that Lycia had a gover-
nor who survived from Nero to Vespasian.®

% Dio Lix.8.2; Lx.8.1 (Antiochus). Braund (c 254) 42, on Lx.8.2 (Polemo); Suet. Ner. 18, with
Magie 1950 (2 853) 1417 n. 62 (annexation of Pontus Polemoniacus). GCN qot, with Price 1984 (F
199) 244f (restoration of the three monarchs).

33 Dio Lx.17.3; 24.4; Tac. Aan. x11.58.2. Pliny, HN v.101 (number of Lycian cities).

% Rome: SEG xvi 570; Agrippa: IGRR ut 719; Tiberius: 474; high priests: 487.

% GCN 231(c).

% Suet. Vesp. 8.4, but see W. Eck, Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (Vestigia 13) (Munich,
1970) 4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

672 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

It was under Nero that the main structural change in eastern Asia
Minor came. Made in 54 for military purposes, it provided Cn. Domitius
Corbulo with freedom of action against the Parthians and a wider
recruiting ground amongst the warlike Gauls, and it became the model
for Vespasian’s permanent scheme. Cappadocia and Galatia were united
under the consular legate Corbulo, and his routine work in remoter areas
was performed by a separate legate.°” The strategic importance of eastern
Asia Minor was being realized; if its wealth was also increasing, that was
a process that would be speeded up under the Flavians.

The client monarchs prepared for their own supersession by follow-
ing the tradition of their kind and founding cities. M. Antonius Polemon
of Olba may be the founder of Claudiopolis on the Calycadnus;
Antiochus IV founded Germanicopolis, Antiochia ad Cragum, Iotape
and Neronias, later the city on the main road to Caesarea from the west
that Archelaus made from the typical ‘village-town’ or ‘fortlet’ Gar-
saoura, administrative centre of the sfrategia named after it; it became a
colony under Claudius. Urban development is suggested elsewhere in
the south-eastern sector of Asia Minor by the appearance of city names
compounded, as before, with those of the emperors, but how substantial
any accompanying changes may have been is not clear. Certainly the
reigns of Claudius and Nero saw road construction and repair in
Anatolia: in Asia (the road from Smyrna to Ephesus and Tralles in a.p.
51), Pamphylia (under the imperial procurator in 50), Bithynia (the
Apamea-Nicaea route in 57-8) and Paphlagonia (¢. A.D. 45 near
Amastris).%8

Vv. CONCLUSION: FIRST FRUITS

The century between Octavian’s accession to sole power and the death of
Nero was one of almost unbroken peace in the areas under discussion, a
condition ideal for political and economic development for regions
capable of it. Western Asia Minor was in the van, in part because of its
proximity to the new Danubian provinces of Moesia and Pannonia, in
part as encasing the routes that led from Ephesus and Byzantium
through the Cilician Gates into Syria or by more northerly branches to
the Euphrates crossing at Tomisa. From this last factor, proximity to
main lines of communication, central and eastern Asia Minor also
benefited, especially communities that lay on the highways, such as
Ancyra, Iconium and Caesarea Mazaca.

From the Roman point of view increased prosperity meant an increase
in the amount of tax that the regions would yield and, almost equally

7 GCN 244.
% Asia: CIL 11 476, 720; Pamphylia: GCN 347; Bithynia: CIL 11 346; Paphlagonia: ILS 5883.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONCLUSION 673

important, their contribution to manpower at all levels. It is significant
that in spite of the obstacles in the way of easterners (language
difficulties, prejudice against new men) a beginning was made during
this century in recruiting men to the imperial service which culminates,
in the Neronian period, in the admission of a considerable number of
easterners into the Senate.

Grants of citizenship were the prerequisite, and the rate of progress
varied from city to city and province to province. From actual or, at a
pinch, potential citizens, legionaries might be recruited, but even non-
citizen areas could contribute soldiers to the auxiliary forces. For these
the places of origin are significant: no units bear names that show them
originally levied in Achaea, Bithynia, or Asia. Levying a troop of horse
or auxiliary infantry from freshly provincialized territory would be
removing potentially dangerous manpower from its home area, and
some units at least (notably swmeri and those with specialized weaponry)
continued to be drawn from their original recruiting grounds even after
they had moved; this was not a motive that would apply in the two
western regions, Greece and the proconsular provinces of Asia Minor.
But mountainous Crete provided a cohort, Galatia apparently an a/a
(VII Phrygum), and Cyprus four cohorts.”

Achaea equally fails to turn up any legionaries in this period, an
indication of impoverishment: recruiting officers perhaps did not think
it worth visiting. Asia and Bithynia have seven to show, eastern Asia
Minor eight times as many (with the three Gallic capitals contributing
over half), and Roman colonies such as Troas, Antioch towards Pisidia,
and Ninica seven. Potential fighting quality and a stake in the land were
desiderata fulfilled above all by men from military colonies and appar-
ently by the Gauls.10

At a higher social level the picture changes. Equestrian procurators
had to satisfy a census requirement (400,000 sesterces) and high qualities
of character were expected.!°! These were conditions not different in
kind from those applied to legionaries, but for equestrian posts patron-
age and recommendation played a vital part and men from out of the way
places did not stand a good chance. Pompeius Macer of Mytilene,
procurator of Asia and librarian at Rome already in the time of
Augustus, came of a family that had been close to the Roman dynasts
since the middle of the first century B.c. C. Iulius Spartiaticus, son of the
disgraced Laco and grandson of Eurycles, became a procurator of
Claudius and Agrippina; not surprisingly he claims to be ‘first of the

* Forauxiliaries, see Cheesman 1914 (D 174); for consistent recruitment from provinces or tribes
after which units were named as something exceptional, see also, e.g., Mocsy 1974 (E 677) 154.

10 For legionary recruitment, see Forni 1953 (p 188), and 1974 (p 189); for Galatia, see Mitchell,
1976 (E 854). 101 For equestrian recruitment, see above all Pflaum 1960-1 (D 59).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

674 14a. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

Achaeans’. From Asia too came the later Julio-Claudian prefects of
Egypt Cn. Vergilius Capito and Ti. Claudius Balbillus, and C. Stertinius
Xenophon, military tribune and ad responsa graeca, from Lycia M.
Arruntius Aquila, the procurator whose name appears on Pamphylian
milestones of 50. Balbillus came from a family close to Tiberius.
Stertinius was son of a tutor to the imperial house and the famous
physician of Claudius Caesar at whose request his native Cos was granted
perpetual immunity from tribute in 53. Amastris provided another
procurator, C. Iulius Aquila, who had been in charge of detachments in
the Bosporan kingdom with Cotys in 49 and had performed dis-
tinguished service there, receiving praetorian insignia; it may be that the
Augustan prefect of Egypt of the same name was his father. Pisidian
Antioch has already figured as a source of legionary recruits. At the
equestrian level it offers the Neronian éuridicus in Egypt and procurator
of Cappadocia and Cilicia Iulius Proculus, who was connected by
marriage with a family from another place of Roman settlement, Attalia
in Pamphylia.10

The same criteria apply to senators as to knights, only the financial
requirements and the barriers of prejudice were higher and more
effective.!03 Q. Pompeius Macer, son of the procurator, is not surpris-
ingly the first known; he rose to the praetorship in a.p. 15. But Italian
descent (from veteran or civilian settler) is important, and that is why M.
Calpurnius Rufus of Attalia, whose mother held the priesthood of Livia
and Rome, is the next known entering under Tiberius and serving as
legate in Lycia-Pamphylia, his province of origin. T. Iunius Montanus,
who reached the suffect consulship in 81, the first easterner to rise so
high, represents the military colony proper, that of Alexandria Troas.
Rufus would soon be followed by M. Plancius Varus from neighbouring
Perge, a Neronian entrant. L. Servenius Cornutus belongs to Acmonia,
but has a comparable ancestry in the Italians there, although his mother
was descended from client dynasts, making her a representative of a
group that was to come into great prominence in the Flavian period.
Cornutus was quaestor in Cyprus under Nero and early in Vespasian’s
reign also served in his own province as legate to the proconsul. Another
man who must have entered the Senate under Nero is the unknown
citizen of Miletus who boasted of being the first senator from his city and
the fifth from Asia.1% These men are harbingers of a swarm, versed as
they were in the administration of cities and eager for metropolitan

102 Suet. Iu/. 56.7 (Macer); GCN 264 (Laco); 127 (Capito); 261 (Balbillus); 262 and Tac. Asn.
x11.61.2 (Xenophon); GCN 347 (Arruntius Aquila); Tac. Asn. xit.21 and GCN 349 (lulius Aquila);
267 (Proclus). 103 For senators from the East see Halfmann 1979 (D 44) and 1982 (£ 836).

104 Halfmann 1982 (E 836) nos. 1 (Macer), 2 (Rufus), 6 (Montanus), 8 (Plancius Varus), 5
(Servenius); 12 (unknown from Miletus).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONCLUSION 675

political life,!°5 familiar with Greek language and ways, and loyal
subjects of Rome and the princeps. The absence of any representative of
Achaea is due to the want of wealth and influence there outside the (still
possibly suspect) family of the descendants of Eurycles; those of his rival
Brasidas did not attain even the citizenship until the reign of Claudius.!%
The lands east of Asia lacked connexions and culture, and still in some
areas the city life that made these things possible. Uninterrupted peace
would bring them more firmly into the fold of hellenism and carry the
cities of the west to unparalleled levels of prosperity and brilliance.

105 Plut. De trang. anim. 10 (Mor. 470C).
105 Plut. Apophth. Aug. 14 (Mor. 207P), with PIR? c 818.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 146

EGYPT!

ALAN K. BOWMAN

I. THE ROMAN CONQUEST

‘Aegyptum imperio populi Romani adieci.’2 Augustus’ stark factual
statement, published almost half a century after the event it records,
spotlights the final act of the drama of Rome’s absorption of the
hellenistic kingdoms. In August of 30 B.c., some ten months after the
Battle of Actium, Octavian had pursued Cleopatra and Mark Antony to
Egypt; both had perished by their own hand in the city founded by
Alexander the Great. The conqueror perhaps flirted with the notion of
formally inaugurating his ‘dominion’ (kraéesis) from the date of the
capture of Alexandria but he finally settled on the first day of the new
Egyptian year (1 Thoth=29 August), bridging the gap with a nominal
eighteen-day ‘reign’ of the children of Antony and Cleopatra. Octavian
was in Egypt for the first and last time. He saw and touched the corpse of
Alexander the Great, causing a piece of the nose to fall off; but he scorned
to view the remains of the Prolemies, remarking that he wished to see a
king, not corpses, and he affected insensitivity to local religious
susceptibilities by his attitude to the venerated Apis bull, observing that
he was accustomed to worship gods, not cattle.3 Egypt was now under
the sway of a non-resident monarch; as a Roman province the country
was effectively depoliticized and a good proportion of its resources was

1 Recent general surveys of material relevant to the early Roman period may be found in
Bowman 1976 (B 367) and 1990 (E gor), Geraci 1983 (£924) and Lewis 1983 (E 946) and Montevecchi
1988 (E 952). Still immensely valuable are Mitteis and Wilcken 1911-12 (B 379) and (especially for
taxation) Wilcken 1899 (B 388). Fora good selection of private and public documentary texts see the
Loeb Select Papyri 1-1, ed. A.S. Hunt, C.C. Edgar (1932-4). The spread of evidence for Roman
Egypt is uneven, the first century A.p. being much less well documented than the subsequent two
centuries. This chapter therefore necessarily draws upon second-century evidence, whilst trying to
avoid giving the impression that what is known to be true for that period must therefore also be true
for the earlier era. This is also partly intended to compensate for the fact that Volume x1 of CAH
(2nd edition) will not contain a separate treatment of Egypt.

The most frequently cited publications of papyri are included in the List of Abbreviations
(p. 1006). Others will be found in E.G. Turner, Greek Papyri, an Introduction (2nd edn, Oxford, 1980)
154-79 and J.F. Oates, R.S. Bagnall, W.H. Willis, K.A. Worp, Checkdist of Editions of Greek Papyri
and Ostraka (4th edn, Atlanta, 1992). 2 RG 27. 3 Dio 11.16.5.

676

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMAN CONQUEST 677

henceforth oriented towards the consuming nucleus of the empire,
Rome itself.

The governmental system whose foundations were reshaped in the
Augustan period was to last, in its essential features, for more than 300
years. During that period there were certainly important modifications
of detail but it was not until the late third century that Egypt saw
fundamental change. The effective division of the empire into East and
West and the foundation of Constantinople were events which knitted
Egypt more uniformly into the structure of the eastern empire and gave
it again an important political role in what was in many ways a more
natural context. Hence it is legitimate to suggest that a treatment of
Egypt under Augustus and the Julio-Claudians might, with due atten-
tion to changes and developments between the accession of Vespasian
and the death of Commodus, stand as valid for the ‘high’ imperial period.
Its history in the difficult years of the third century can then form a
suitable prelude to a discussion of the important changes under Diocle-
tian and Constantine which shaped its role in the Byzantine Empire.

The transformation of a nominally independent kingdom into a
Roman province may have been the act of a moment but Egypt had long
been prepared for the coming of Rome. Her history in the dozen years
before Actium shows a powerful and intelligent client monarch attempt-
ing to use the capacity of a Roman military dynast to aggrandizea friend
and ally of the Senate and People of Rome. The story of the political
struggle is told elsewhere.‘ As for the internal state of the country in the
triumviral period, there are only scraps of evidence. The latest of the
Ptolemaic royal decrees to have survived, issued in the names of
Cleopatra and Caesarion in 42/41 B.C., offers protection to Alexandrians
who owned land in the delta against depredations of Crown officials
which will have been exacerbated by the need to purchase Roman
goodwill.5 The fabled wealth of the Ptolemies (Auletes’ annual revenue
was still 12,500 talents according to Cicero®) had been plundered to good
purpose in recent years.

It is difficult to be sure that Cleopatra’s reign as a whole was marked by
declining prosperity. Some have postulated an upturn after the depar-
ture of Caesar and the recovery of Cyprus.’ In any event, Cleopatra
found popularity with her Egyptian subjects. She spoke the Egyptian
language, she personally attended the installation of the sacred Buchis
bull at Hermonthis, she continued the tradition, albeit perhaps spar-
ingly, of temple building and embellishment (construction is attested at

4 Above, ch. 1. $ COrdP tol 75-6. ® Quoted by Strab. xvit.1.13 (798C).
7 Machler 1983 (E 948).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Small Oasis | i .

Hermopolis Magna) O% Antinoopolis —
3, Lreopolis

eeteeshslicaieasan O
Aphrodite ©

- NUBADES

Map 17. Egypt.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BUREAUCRACY 679

Athribis, Coptos, Hermonthis and Tentyra).8 By 36/35 B.c. she had
added a new element to the royal titulature, ‘Philopatris’. Her Roman
consort might receive a Greek votive dedication and the appellation of
‘god’ (theos), but on the Egyptian temple reliefs Cleopatra’s consort is her
son Ptolemy XVI Caesarion.? Antony may have made little impression
in Egypt outside Alexandria.

Obviously, Cleopatra’s contribution to Antony’s war effort was of
paramount importance; the Ptolemaic army and navy were still consider-
able; the latter, or what was left of it after Actium, went to provide the
nucleus of the Alexandrian arm of the Roman imperial fleet. Signs of the
Roman military presence are noticeable in 55 B.c. after the intrusion of
the Gabiniani, and with Caesar’s installation of troops in the aftermath of
the Alexandrian War.!° The Greek translation of cobors occurs in a
papyrus of the period from Heracleopolis; a Roman praefectus named C.
Iulius Papius makes a dedication in the temple of Isis at Philae in the
twentieth year of Cleopatra’s reign.'! After Actium greater care was
taken at a higher level. Senators and illustrious equites were forbidden
entry to Egypt without permission of the princeps. One of the few people
put to death in the aftermath of the royal suicide had been a Roman
senator named Q. Ovinius who had disgraced his senatorial stripe by
undertaking supervision of the Queen’s textile factories and perhaps
provided an admonitory example of the economic power-base available
in Egypt.!2

II. BUREAUCRACY AND ADMINISTRATION

From the first, care was taken in the establishment of the status and
administration of a province which yielded almost as much revenue as
did the Gallic provinces added to the empire by Augustus’ adoptive
father and twelve times as much as the province of Judaea was to
provide.'3 The emperor immediately took on the role of a Pharaoh and
the familiar cartouches were to appear on temple reliefs until the reign of
Decius (A.D. 249—-51); the lamplighters of Oxyrhynchus duly adapted
their customary oath of office and swore by Caesar, ‘god, son of a god’
(theon ek theou) in 30/29 B.c.4 But Egypt was to be anomalous in being
governed by an equestrian praefectus appointed by and directly respon-
sible to the princeps (though a freedman could also hold the office as did
one Hiberus for a brief period in a.pD. 32, replacing the deceased Vitrasius

8 CAH x2, ch. 8¢, Porter and Moss 1937, 1939 (E 958) v 31, 33, 128, 133, 151-7, VI 79.

9 BGU 2376; OGIS 193; Porter and Moss 1972, 1939 (E 98) 11? 714, VI 79.

10 On the Gabiniani see CAH 1x2, ch. 8c.

BGU 1763, 1806; [Phil 1 63; WChr 462 (= FIRA 1 56).

12 Tac. Ann. 11.59; Oros. vt.19.20. 13 Vell. Pat. 11.39; Joseph. BJ 11.386.
‘4 Porter and Moss 1939 (E 958) vi 114; POxy 1453.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

680 14b. EGYPT

Pollio).!5 The first prefect was the poet Cornelius Gallus who had led
Octavian’s army into Egypt from the west in the war against Antony and
Cleopatra. His first responsibility, to ensure internal security, was met by
prompt reduction of rebellious towns in the region of Coptos in the
Thebaid but he boasted, perhaps too vaingloriously, of that and of his
feat in carrying Roman arms further south than they had hitherto gone.'¢
Within a couple of years he was removed from office, banned from
entering the princeps’ provinces and finally driven to suicide.

For the first decade of Roman rule, we have more evidence for the
preoccupation with military security than for the development of the
civil administration. The history of Egypt in the decade after Actium
well illustrates the major features of the Augustan frontier strategy.
Cornelius Gallus’ inauspicious foray to the south of the First Cataract
was perhaps the first attempt to test the viability of further annexation of
territory. In the Arabian expedition of his successor, Aelius Gallus, the
security of the Indian trade routes will certainly have been an important
consideration, but that need not have been the primary motivation for
expansion. In effect, with the Nabataean kingdom to the east left
independent until a.p. 106, the trading links maintained with India
through the ports of the Red Sea coast and the developing road network
of the eastern desert functioned perfectly satisfactorily.'7 The expedi-
tions of the next prefect, P. Petronius,!8 to the south between 25/4 and 22
B.C. brought a short-lived Roman occupation of the region beyond the
Dodecaschoenus and a Roman garrison to Primis (Qasr Ibrim), a site
which has yielded the earliest Latin literary manuscript, fragments of
elegiacs, most probably by Cornelius Gallus.!9 Augustus soon decided,
however, to remit tribute, perhaps calculating that the cost of occupa-
tion was not justified, and within a few years the formal limit of the
province had been set at Hierasykaminos, some 80km to the south of the
First Cataract. But the impact of the Roman presence further south, in an
area accessible to Rome and to Meroe, was still by no means negligible
and served as a reminder of the latent interest and power of Rome. In the
southernmost part of the province the most obvious signs of Roman
dominion are the great temples, largely constructed in the Augustan
period, at Dendur and at Kalabsha (Talmis) where there seem to be two
distinct temples of the Augustan period ona site which also shows signs
of building in the late Ptolemaic period.

Military sensitivity and the importance of the grain supply help to

'S Dio tviit.19.6; Philo, In Flece. 1.2. 16 [Phil 11 128; see above, ch. 4.

'7 See below, pp. 732-6. 18 For the praenomen see Bagnall 1985 (E 889).

'9 Anderson, Parsons and Nisbet 1979 (B 4).

2% Strab. xvi1.1.54 (820-1C); Porter and Moss 1951 (£ 958) vil 10-20, 27-33; de Meulenaere, CE
36 (1961) 98-105; for an exploratory expedition to East Africa in the Neronian period see Pliny, HN
VI.184.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BUREAUCRACY 681

explain the direct imperial appointment of the prefect and are perhaps
sufficient to account for Tacitus’ insistence that the princeps controlled
Egypt especially closely.21 The Senate was thus effectively excluded from
any direct responsibility, although even regulations for the administ-
ration of the emperor’s Special Account (Idios Logos) might still be
modified or affected by senatorial acts.22 One factor of obvious import-
ance is that the conquest brought a great deal of land into imperial
possession (the patrimonium). There is evidence under Augustus for
possession of estates (whether through purchase or gift) by the emper-
or’s relatives and friends (Livia, Antonia the Younger, Germanicus,
Maecenas), though none for direct personal ownership by Augustus.
Later emperors did, however, own estates and continued to bestow them
on friends and favourites such as Seneca, Narcissus, Pallas, Doryphorus;
these latter properties would naturally revert, whether de ivre or merely de
facto is unclear, to the patrimonium on the death of the individual.2 The
presence of imperial property, if nothing else, emphasizes that it is very
misleading to characterize the whole province as in some sense the
‘personal property’ of the emperor. But Egypt was nevertheless a
province with important differences.

The office of prefect of Egypt was to develop, as might have been
foreseen, into one of immense latent power, as Tiberius Iulius Alexander
was to demonstrate in A.D. 69 with his support of Vespasian’s bid for the
imperial throne; Avidius Cassius, the son of a former prefect, was to
claim the support of Egypt and its prefect in his unsuccessful attempt at
usurpation in A.D.175.24 The authority of the prefecture was spelled out
in a law, presumably enacted in or very soon after 30 B.c., which gave the
incumbent’s acts and decrees the same validity as those of any Roman
magistrate.25 The list of prefects appointed by Augustus and the Julio-
Claudian emperors shows some illustrious (and notorious) names: C.
Turranius, Seius Strabo, father of Sejanus, Avillius Flaccus, Sutorius
Macro. Prefects held office for three years, on average, and in the absence
of any specialist Egyptian training relied on their general knowledge of
the principles of military and civil administration and law, backed up by
readily available local expertise, to cope with the diverse and intricate
bureaucratic demands of the job. Promotion from Egypt to the
praetorian prefecture is regularly attested in the period a.p. 70-235.
Tiberius Iulius Alexander, nephew of Philo and member of a prominent
Alexandrian Jewish family, is important as the earliest example of an
official who held an equestrian post in Egypt (that of epistrategos) and

2 Ann. 11.59, Hist. 1.11. 2 BGU 1210 praef.

2 Parassoglou 1978 (£ 956) App. II, 69-83.

24 Joseph. BJ 1v.616ff; SB 10295 cf. Bowman 1970(E 899), with Sijpesteijn, ZPE 8 (1971) 186-92.
3 Tac. Ann. xit.60; D. 1.17. % Philo, In Flace. 3, cf. Brunt 1975 (£ 906).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

682 146. EGYPT

advanced to the prefecture, proceeding later in all probability to the
praetorian command; Caecina Tuscus and Claudius Balbillus both held
equestrian posts slightly later than Alexander and reached the prefecture
earlier. Before them, three examples are known of men who proceeded
from the praetorian prefecture to Egypt, namely Seius Strabo, Sutorius
Macro and Lusius Geta, all perhaps in circumstances of political
sensitivity.2?

Like any Roman provincial governor the prefect exercised control,
subject only to the emperor’s overriding power, over all aspects of the
administration of his province. Innovatory regulations could be intro-
duced either by the application of imperial pronouncements or senatus
consulta, or by prefectural edicts. The degree of independence which a
prefect enjoyed was presumably a matter of fine tuning and sensitivity to
the limits of his emperor’s tolerance, indifference or ignorance. The
transgressions of Cornelius Gallus were not administrative but military
and political. Tiberius, however, castigated a prefect for stripping the
provincials rather than shearing them. By contrast, Tiberius Iulius
Alexander showed the required sensitivity to the need to link a general
statement of benevolence to the inauguration of a new reign.?8

The functioning of the administration depended upon a complex
bureaucratic structure which certainly owed a great deal to Ptolemaic
precedents, although it should be firmly emphasized that the changes
introduced by the Romans were at least as important as the continuities.
In direct subordination to the prefect stood a variety of officials of
equestrian rank: one in charge of the emperor’s Special Account, the
turidicus supervising the judicial administration, various procurators
with specific responsibilities, the higher-ranking military officers. We
cannot be sure quite how clearly defined the roles of the civil officials
were in the early years. Much of the evidence is from the second century
and it suggests that status and function tended to become more clearly
defined in the course of time. In the Flavian period the estates account
(ousiakos logos) was created to supervise patrimonial properties; at least
two new officials were probably instituted in Hadrian’s reign — the
diotketes, a financial officer with responsibility for the land economy, and
the high-priest (archiereus) of Alexandria and all Egypt, in charge of
religious institutions. Slightly different in character, although also of
equestrian procuratorial status, were the epistrategoi, three or four in
number, assigned to territorial divisions comprising groups of districts
called nomes (one in the Thebaid, one in the Arsinoite Nome and the
Heptanomia, one or two in the delta).29 The evidence shows that the
epistrategoi, rather than being miniature prefects in their regions, had

7) For this view see Hanson 1982 (E 930).
28 Dio Lvit.10.5; Chalon 1964 (E 909) lines 3—10. 29 Thomas 1982 (£ 973) 11 ch. 3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BUREAUCRACY 683

specific and limited functions (relating most importantly to the liturgical
system and the judicial administration); again, much of the evidence
comes from the second century, by which time the office might have
developed wider powers than it had earlier enjoyed. An important
general feature of this innovation was that it constituted an injection of
paid officials of high rank virtually all of whom, at least in the early years,
will have been outsiders who might be expected to perform their duties
with a greater degree of impartiality than natives. This is one feature
which emphasizes the fundamental division between officials at this level
and the native administrators occupying positions at the nome level or
below.

It is difficult to provide a tidy description of the upper levels of the
administrative structure by which the Roman government organized the
affairs of Egypt, largely, no doubt, because the activities of officials at the
procuratorial levels, even in the later period, were less apt to be
compartmentalized than in modern government. Obviously the auth-
ority of the prefect was supreme within the province in all areas. The
administrative activities of the head of the Special Account entailed
judicial functions in matters affecting the account he administered; how
independent his judicial role was depends on the strictness with which
the matter of prefectural delegation is viewed. Equestrian military
officers are found performing non-military functions — acting in judicial
capacities and conducting admission (epikrisis) procedures for Roman
citizens (many of whom will have been veterans).*°

A more detailed consideration of the administration of the emperor’s
Special Account, a Ptolemaic survival whose character was radically
altered under Roman rule, provides a good example of the complexities
and developments in the system. Under the Ptolemies this account had
managed land which fell into Crown possession but under the Romans it
seems to have supervised only ownerless property (adespota) and land ‘in
deduction’ (ge en hypologot) which was to be sold off; supervision of
imperial land and estates belonging to the fiscus (oustai tamiakai) was, at
least in the later period, separately administered. But it was given new
responsibilities such as supervision of the sale of temple offices and the
admission to Egyptian priesthoods (eiskritikon). Our best single piece of
evidence for its sphere and mode of operation comes in the form of a
copy of its Gnomon (Code of Regulations); this gives us the form in which
it existed in the Antonine period but it is explicitly tralatician and goes
back to the reign of Augustus.3! In the Gnomon we see the account
exercising wide-ranging powers which affected escheatable and owner-
less property (bona caduca and bona vacantia), matters of status, testamen-

3% BGU 258; FIRA wt 171; MChr 84-5; for a list of epikrisis documents (all post-a.D. 103) see
Nelson 1979 (E 953) 40-2. 31 BGU 1210 praef.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

684 146. EGYPT

tation, manumission, the activities of priests, the rights of soldiers to
own land and so on; its administrative functions are thus intimately
bound up with legal powers. Whether it possessed the latter from the
first or whether they are a gradual later accretion is difficult to see; but a
fragment of the Gnomon which is thought to date to the middle of the first
century suggests that, despite variations in detail, the text was relatively
stable.32 This would tend to emphasize the public nature of those
interests of the fiscus which it dealt with in the earlier period and the
Special Account may, indeed, have provided a model for the establish-
ment and growth of the public role of the fiscus elsewhere.

Beneath this administrative superstructure, the traditional nome
divisions, which numbered between forty and fifty in the Roman period,
remained the basic territorial units for administrative purposes. In the
second century natives drawn from the Greco-Egyptian populace were
appointed to paid posts in these districts. They did not normally serve in
their native nomes nor were they permitted to acquire unproductive or
auctioned land in the nomes where they did serve. But in the first century
there is evidence to suggest that they were recruited from Alexandrians
with Roman citizenship and from the ranks of the magistrates in the
nome-capitals (wetropoleis).33 The most important of these nome officials
were the sfrategoi and the royal scribes (basilikoi grammateis), and the
former, in particular, had a crucial role (much greater than that of the
officials with the corresponding title in the Ptolemaic period) in the
system of tax-collection with direct responsibility to the prefect; they are,
in many respects, the key to understanding the way in which the Roman
government ensured the co-operation or compliance of the local
authorities in the towns and villages. A eulogizing inscription of the
reign of Tiberius describes the virtues of a strategos in dispensing justice
without corruption in accordance with the will of the prefect, managing
the upkeep of the dykes and the irrigation system, and farming out
public positions.¥

Although there were also officials whose functions were exercised in
regional divisions of the nome (toparchies), it is the officials of the towns
and villages who form the keystone of administration at its most basic
level. The role which the metropoleis developed as administrative
centres for their nomes had always been inherent in the Ptolemaic system
but the evidence suggests that it was much enhanced under the Romans.
The villages in the nome tended to form their own hierarchical
groupings but they were oriented towards the metropoleis as the main
administrative centres of operations which directly served central
government interests, principally record-keeping, taxation and the
administration of justice. In this respect there is some analogy with the

32 POxy 3014. 33 BGU 1210, section 7o. % SEG vu 527 (A.D. 22/3).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BUREAUCRACY 685

development of poleis or civitates with their dependent éerriforia in other
provinces. It is also very important to note that the Romans did make
innovations in introducing magisterial offices (archai) in the metropoleis
(gymnasiarchs, exegetai, kosmetai) which were the means of affording a
degree of self-government in internal administration — public buildings,
games, markets and so on.35 This is completely different from anything
in the Ptolemaic period and allows comparison, to some degree, with the
character of local administration in other Roman provinces. It is true,
however, that in the first two centuries of Roman rule the metropoleis
conspicuously lacked the distinguishing feature of the autonomous polis
or civitas elsewhere, namely a council (boule). The absence of a corporate
organ of administration meant that there was no /ocus of communal
responsibility and that the nome officials had, in effect, to supervise and
organize the local authorities in the performance of their obligations to
the government. As for the villages, their boards of presbyteroi (elders)
enjoyed enlarged authority under Roman tule, but less independence
than their metropolitan counterparts and their appointment was prob-
ably made or vetted by the village scribe (Aomogrammateus).*© Their main
functions lay in the areas of supervision of leases of land on behalf of the
community, collection of taxes and provision of guards (phy/akes).
Government supervision of these local authorities was particularly
noticeable in the area of appointment to liturgical services, the nature
and scale of which was to become so radically different from anything
that had existed in the Ptolemaic period as to make it, in effect, another
Roman innovation of the utmost importance. There is no doubt that the
range and complexity of the liturgical system developed greatly in the
course of the second century but its origins must certainly be put in the
Julio-Claudian period.?’ In due course distinctions became apparent
between the various types of liturgies, all of which were dependent upon
the property qualification (poros) of the individual: administrative tasks
performed by metropolitans of the gymnasial class, by other metropoli-
tans and by relatively well-off villagers, then, at the lowest level, tasks
performed by poorer individuals as liturgies requiring personal service
(/eitourgiai somatikai). These liturgists performed a wide variety of tasks,
some internal to the functioning of the town or village, others in areas of
33 Despite Tac. Hist. t.11, ‘ignaram magistratuum’, which must be taken as a general comment on
the lack of municipal institutions. For holders of archai in the Julio-Claudian period see, for example,
POxy 246, WChr 176 (kosmetai), P Mert 62, SB9109, P Lond 1166 (gymnasiarchs); note that corporate
responsibilities of the £oinon ton archonton (corporation of magistrates) are not attested until the late

second century (the term occurs in Chr 34, of a.p. 201 and it may be inferred that this is the body
whose proceedings are recorded in PRy/ 77, of a.p. 192). See now Bowman and Rathbone 1992 (£
903).

% PPbil 1.11.37ff (A.D. 103—7); note the early evidence for an official called begonmenos tes homes
(headman of the village) in PTeb 401, 484.

37 PMich 582; SB 9224; Hibner, ZPE 24 (1977) 43-33, cf. Thomas 1983 (E 974); contra, Lewis,
ZPE 31 (1978) 141-2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

686 14h. EGYPT

more direct interest to the central government such as tax-collection or
the dyke-corveée. In the absence of local councils it was natural that the
nome officials, the s¢rategoi in particular, should play an important role in
vetting the nomination of suitably qualified persons and supervising the
performance of liturgists who performed tasks of direct interest to the
government. For the first two centuries A.D. it is important to make a
distinction, in principle, between these compulsory services and the
voluntary metropolitan magistracies (archai), confined to ‘Greeks’ of the
gymnasial class. This distinction was later to become meaningless as the
magistracies became so burdensome as to be regarded in the same light as
liturgies and to necessitate compulsion, even though they theoretically
retained their prestige and exclusiveness.

Only a handful of communities stood outside this system — the so-
called ‘Greek cities’; three had existed in the Ptolemaic period, Alexan-
dria, Naucratis and Ptolemais and a fourth, Antinoopolis, was to be
added in the reign of Hadrian. As far as internal administration was
concerned these were distinguished by having a greater degree of
autonomy and independence from government officials. They were the
only communities which possessed councils (though Alexandria is a
famous exception) and their magistracies and civic institutions (such as
tribes, demes and some local courts and protected laws) were much
closer to the traditional institutions of the Greek po/is than anything
elsewhere in Egypt.>8 But the Roman introduction, early in the period,
of archai in the metropoleis nevertheless seems to mark an important and
deliberate, albeit gradual, attempt at development along these lines and,
as such, it must be seen as the foundation of the Egyptian version of the
type of civic or municipal government which the Romans encouraged or
introduced in other provinces; and, as elsewhere, it has important
repercussions on the physical development of the administrative centres.

In describing the details of the business handled by means of these
bureaucratic structures, it is convenient to make a conventional division
between the military, financial and judicial administration but it should
be emphasized that there are in practice very few rigid lines of
demarcation; the application of law and the administration of justice, in
particular, pervades every area of bureaucratic activity in a way which
modern notions of administration and jurisdiction tend to obfuscate.

1. Military organization

The introduction of a standing army marked a sharp break from
Ptolemaic practice. The monarchs had relied upon soldier-cleruchs
(Greek immigrants at first, latterly native Egyptians as well), supple-

38 WChr 27; SB 9016, 7603; see Bowman and Rathbone 1992 (£ 903); for Alexandria see below,
Pp- 700-1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BUREAUCRACY 687

mented by the use of mercenaries.*° In the reign of Augustus Egypt was
garrisoned by a force of three Roman legions, nine auxiliary cohorts and
three cavalry units (a/ae); there was also the classis Alexandrina whose
strength cannot be gauged and the river-patrol which was separately
organized. At first the legions were stationed at Alexandria, Babylon and
Thebes; by a.pD. 23, with increasing internal security they were reduced
to two and stationed in the Roman camp at Nicopolis near Alexandria,
sending detachments upriver as and when necessary. Three auxiliary
cohorts (and perhaps one a/z) had been based there from the first, with
another three at Syene near the southern border. The other units cannot
be securely located but will have been distributed in Middle and Upper
Egypt, sending small detachments for service away from their perma-
nent bases, to towns in the valley or to crucial strategic points in the
deserts. The overall strength of the Egyptian garrison fluctuated
somewhat in the course of time. The legionary establishment was
maintained at two until the reign of Hadrian, then reduced to one; in a.D.
105 there were still three a/ae but only seven cohorts and in the middle of
the second century four a/ae and twelve cohorts.

The command structure in the Egyptian units differed from the norm
only in one important respect. Since senatorial legionary legates were
excluded, the legions were commanded by the prefect of the camp
(praefectus castrorum). One such has been identified as having held this
post in the 6os and then to have pursued a career of distinction — namely
Minicius Iustus, an old friend of Pliny the Younger, who rose to the
primipilate (senior centurionate) and eventually married into a consular
family; another, Aeternius Fronto, advanced to the prefecture of Egypt
early in the Flavian period. The officers of the early period will have
predominantly hailed from Italy and the West. Rankers from Gaul and
other western provinces are attested too, but recruitment for the ranks
concentrated mainly on the eastern provinces outside Egypt. This will
be one thing which distinguished them from the surrounding civilian
populace but, even so, there is early evidence ofa few native Egyptians in
auxiliary units, a trend which certainly became more marked with the
passage of time. A unique early example of an Egyptian legionary soldier
in the middle of the first century is an Oxyrhynchite named Lucius
Pompeius Niger, a veteran of /egio XXII Deiotariana, whose father was
called Syros, son of Apion.*!

After the first decade of Roman rule when attempts to expand the

% That the disappearance of Prolemaic military ranks was gradual is indicated by the existence of
a thirty-seven-year-old Aatoikos, described as tes y bipparchias ton bekontarouron, in 2 document of A.D.
12/13, PKéln 227.4-6.

Justus, RMR 31 with Davies 1973 (E 913); Aeternius Fronto, PIR (2) 1287 (sic).

41 Gilliam 1986 (D 192) 335-40; Whitehorne 1988 (E 982).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

688 145. EGYPT

province were abandoned, the role of the army in ensuring external
security was effectively confined to keeping an eye on the Dodecaschoe-
nus and the borders with Meroe, not entirely a sinecure in this period
(and even less so in the later empire); a papyrus of the later first century
appears to describe an engagement between Roman troops and com-
bined forces of Ethiopians and Trogodytes who inhabited areas of the
Red Sea coast to the south of Berenice.‘2 Matters of internal security bulk
larger in our evidence. Alexandria was always potentially volatile and
trouble between Greeks and Jews in a.p. 66 necessitated action by the
two legions and extra drafts of troops from Africa.43 The much more
serious Jewish revolt of A.D. 115-17 was by no means confined to
Alexandria — there was exceptionally fierce fighting in the chora too and,
once again troops had to be brought in from abroad (as well as a dis-
tinguished commander, Marcius Turbo); there is some surprising evi-
dence, too, for the involvement of a civil official, Apollonius the strategos
of Apollonopolis-Heptakomias, in military action near Memphis.“
Such disturbances interrupted the routine duties of the army only
infrequently. Of surpassing importance is the evidence for its centrality
in the economic and social development of the province. Supervision of
the exploitation of the mines and quarries of the eastern desert was
particularly important, as was the construction and guarding of the
roads which brought goods from the ports of the Red Sea coast to
Coptos; a well-known inscription of the reign of Tiberius records the
activities of a working party from the Egyptian legions, cohorts and a/ae
which constructed watering-stations (ydreumata) in the eastern desert
and a camp at Coptos; ostraca of a later period provide more vivid
personal evidence for the duties of individual soldiers in detachments
assigned to such posts.*5 Greater general participation in the civilian life
of the province is attested by first-century papyri which show that
soldiers provided virtually the only form of effective policing, did duty
in a jail, supplied guards for river-transport, supervisors for the mint,
were assigned to the manufacture of papyrus or to the supervision of
weights in a market. All of this presupposes a high degree of
integration in the life of the province and such links between civilians
and the military will have been strengthened by the increase in local
recruitment, the tendency for sons to follow fathers into service and the
generally greater visibility and importance of veterans, highlighted in an
incident of the Neronian period when veterans of legions, auxiliary
cohorts and a/ge and the fleet petitioned the prefect about the fact that
their privileged status was being ignored.*” By contrast, illustration of

4 Turner, JRS 40 (1930) 57-9. 43 Joseph. BJ 11.487-93. “ CPJ 439.
45 ILS 2483; OF lorida, OWadiFawakbir (= CPL 303-9, SB 9017). “ RMR 10, 51.
7 FIRA ur 171.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BUREAUCRACY 689

the price which the provincials paid for all this comes in the form of
evidence for the burdens of billeting and requisitions which the military
presence imposed on the civil population. Alleviation of these burdens
was a preoccupation of Germanicus during his visit of A.D. 19 and an
edict of the Claudian prefect Vergilius Capito inveighs against fraudu-
lent requisitions and orders local officials to send accounts of such
expenditures to an imperial freedman.*

2. Finance and taxation

Fundamental to an appraisal of the financial administration in Egypt is
the nature of the monetary system and the organization of taxation.
Whilst the Romans inherited from their Ptolemaic predecessors a
province which was already extensively monetized and exploited
through a wide variety of taxes and rents in cash and kind, fundamental
changes were made under Augustus and the Julio-Claudians which
determined the basic shape of the financial administration for the next
three centuries.

For half a century after Actium the Alexandrian mint produced only
bronze coinage, the notional value of the old tetradrachma being
artificially supplemented to equate it to the new universal denarius
standard. Minting of the silver tetradrachma was re-established by
Tiberius in A.D. 19/20, though with a smaller percentage of silver than its
Ptolemaic predecessor, and it remained the basic unit until A.D. 296 when
the Alexandrian mint ceased to operate in isolation from the rest of the
empire. The fixed equivalence of the tetradrachma to the denarius seems
to have been established in the Julio-Claudian period, probably in the
reign of Claudius, but the fact that it was more overvalued than the
denarius had two important effects; first that the imperial government
profited directly from this overvaluation and second that the Egyptian
currency became ‘closed’, de facto if not de ixre, because the purchasing
power of the tetradrachma outside Egypt was bound to be weaker than
that of the denarius. This isolation did not mean that Egypt was immune
from the economic effects of a deteriorating currency but there was
stability for over a century after the Neronian reform (see p. 252) and the
ill-effects do not begin to be evident until the later part of the second
century. There is now no reason to accept the once widely held view that
coinage did not circulate extensively in the villages as well as the towns
of the delta and the valley or that the government lacked any apprecia-
tion of the need to maintain and regulate the volume of currency
available. It is, however, impossible to document either of these

“ EJ? 320; H. Evelyn White, J.H. Oliver, The Temple of Hibis in El-Khargeb Oasis 1 (New York,
1938) 1-19.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

690 146. EGYPT

phenomena in detail nor can we reconstruct the processes whereby the
credits earned from overseas trade were internalized and contributed to
payments of tribute made to Rome. There is some later evidence which
implies that such operations were managed by Alexandrian financiers
working under government contract.4?

The extraordinary amount of evidence which the papyri provide for
the details of the taxation system, in particular, means that Egypt is by far
the best known of all provinces in this respect, even though there are
many important features about which we are uninformed. The tribute
which the Roman government drew from Egypt was extracted in the
form of land-tax (tributum soli) and a wide variety of personal taxes
(tributum capitis), as well as ad valorem impositions. Some of this tribute
will have left the province in the form of cash and of the annona which fed
the city of Rome, a great deal will have remained in the province to pay
troops and other government costs (e.g. salaries for officials). The tax
burden was divided among the nome-capitals and the villages in their
nomes but, beneath this level, there must have been a complex series of
mechanisms according to which the communities determined how they
apportioned their liability among individuals and collected the revenues.
One radical change brought by the Romans was the provincial census,
established in the reign of Augustus; the earliest certain incidence is that
of A.D. 19/20 but it seems very unlikely that this was the first.5° The
fourteen-year census cycle, with intermittent updating, required the
submission of house-by-house returns (Aa? oikian apographai) by indivi-
dual heads of households and these provided the basis for determining
liability to capitation taxes and to taxes on domestic property. Taxes paid
on land were determined according to the records of the annually revised
land survey. A second important feature is the system of direct collection
of taxes. Local people were appointed to compulsory service as collec-
tors (praktores or sitologoi), for example, and supervised by officials. Tax-
farming on a large scale had probably never been common in Egypt (at
least for land taxes), so it is unlikely that there was any significant change
in this respect. But there is nevertheless considerable evidence through-
out the period for the farming, occasionally under duress, of a variety of
cash taxes in particular towns or small areas.

The great variety of taxes attested in the papyri can only be indicated
in a summary form. Much of the revenue from the land was raised in
grain, levied as tax on private property and as rent on imperially owned
and public land; vineyards and garden-land were subject to cash
assessments. A straight poll-tax was the basic personal imposition,
imposed at different rates according to status and even varying from

49 PBad 37. 50 POxy 254, cf. PMich 578, Montevecchi 1988 (E 952) 177-8.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BUREAUCRACY 691

place to place and exempting Roman citizens, Alexandrians and women
altogether. There were numerous small impositions (merismoi) — trade
taxes, bath-tax, dyke-tax, for example — sometimes supplemented to
compensate for defaulters; taxes on domestic property, on animals,
charges on sales and transfers of property, on specified products (salt and
oil); taxes paid by Roman citizens (manumission, inheritance); customs
dues and tolls; requisitions for military purposes; taxes on temples.
Finally, the great burden of compulsory public services imposed on all
strata of the populace was also a form of taxation.

These general characteristics of the taxation system apply to the
province as a whole but there is great variation in detail from place to
place. Local and temporal variations in rates and methods of collection
are bewildering but clearly attested. This makes it impossible to assess
how great the burden of taxation was for individuals beyond the simple
observation that the basic rates of tax on privately owned land during the
Principate seem to have been quite low (little more than perhaps 1o per
cent of yield). Assessments could, of course, be varied from year to year
to take account of the level of the flood and consequent fertility or
peculiar local conditions. Difficulties in collection are often apparent.
During the reigns of Claudius and Nero substantial numbers of tax-
payers from Philadelphia in the Fayum fled from their obligations. The
edict of Tiberius Iulius Alexander of a.pD. 68 presents a vivid picture of
widespread abuses in the tax-system; impressment of people into tax-
collection, the imposition of new and unauthorized levies and so on.
Some have seen the edict as an attempt to cope with a general economic
crisis in Egypt in the Neronian period but the evidence for universal
difficulties is very slender. Abuses and complaints of the kind described
in Alexander’s edict are by no means confined to this era. The difficulties
in tax-collection attested at Philadelphia are likely to be chronic and the
situation was perhaps exacerbated during the forties by low fertility as a
result of a run of unusual levels of inundation.5!

3. Justice

The judicial competence of the prefect within the province was supreme,
subject to the possibility of appeal to the emperor. The exercise of
personal jurisdiction by the prefect was carried out by the introduction
of an assize-circuit (conventus) organized in three districts of which the
centres were Alexandria (western delta), Pelusium (eastern delta) and
Memphis (Middle and Upper Egypt). A certain amount of choice and
flexibility existed, however, and judicial sessions are known to have been

5! Chalon 1964 (E 909), cf. SB 8900; Hanson 1988 (£ 932)

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

692 14b. EGYPT

held in other towns in the districts such as Arsinoe or Coptos and, after
A.D. 130, Antinoopolis.52 In these sessions the prefect would deal with
cases, applications and petitions presented to him, assisted by his
advisers (consiliarii) who might include the iwridicus, the head of the Idios
Logos, military officers, local officials and lawyers (nomikoi) who were
familiar with the Egyptian institutions and laws.53 One clear indication
that the use of the term ‘jurisdiction’ can be misleadingly restrictive is the
fact that the proper and full title by which this exercise was known was
dialogismos kai dikaiodosia (review of accounts and dispensation of
justice).54 It is doubtful whether the prefect of Egypt was ever con-
strained or guided by the institution of a provincial edict (edictum
provinciale) and, certainly in the area of criminal cases which fell under
Roman law, he was able, as a second-century papyrus shows, to decide
what specific categories of cases he would handle personally.55 Thus
described, the outlines of the superstructure are consonant with the way
in which we should expect a provincial governor to exercise his judicial
powers. It is, however, much more difficult definitively to identify and
describe the major features of the system at the lower levels because it
involves an analysis of the relationship between the ‘Roman’ officials
(down to and including the epistrategos) and the local (from the strategos
downwards) and their areas of competence and power and of that
between Roman criminal and private law strictly defined, on the one
hand, and Egyptian laws and institutions on the other.

The exercise of ‘judicial’ functions by officials lower down the
hierarchy is commonly described by modern scholars in terms of
‘delegation’ by the prefect. Thus, particular matters might be dealt with
by a procurator, an epistrategos, a strategos or even a centurion according
to, perhaps even sometimes outside, their particular area of administra-
tive function. Or the prefect could appoint judges (éudices) to handle
particular cases. And, in principle, any matter might be thrown back into
the prefect’s court if the issue at stake, the incompetence of a lower
official or the status of the persons involved necessitated it. Officials at
the nome or local level would necessarily handle matters within their
administrative role which might involve decisions which had to have
legal validity. Thus a prefect can state that his personal appearance in the
Thebaid is unnecessary because the local strategoi have dealt with the
business;5© an archidikastes (chief judge), in charge of the operation of
civic courts in Alexandria, handles matters pertaining to the status or
ownership of land of Alexandrian citizens and, when these necessitate

32 PRyl 74; POxyHels 19; SB 4416.27; PRy/ 434. 33 FIRA 11171; POxy 2757, 3015.

54 $B 4416.28-9, cf. Philo, In Flace. 133.

55 N. Lewis, ‘Un nouveau texte sur fa juridiction du préfet d’Fgypte’, in RHDFE 1972, 5—12, cf.
tbid. 1973, §—7- 56 PRy/ 74.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ECONOMY AND SOCIETY 693

further investigation in the chora, he is able to require it from local
officials.5” It is perhaps better, however, not to represent this as a
hierarchy of ‘delegated jurisdiction’, the competence of officials at each
level of the hierarchy being strictly inferior to that of the level above.
Rather there is a range of officials and institutions applying administra-
tive and necessarily often legal decisions in accordance with the rules and
laws appropriate to the matter in hand and the status of the persons
involved; but it was in principle always possible for the persons involved
to seek satisfaction from a higher authority. This is surely how the so-
called ‘judicial’ functions of the strategos, the validity of Egyptian laws
(nomoi), the independent local courts of the Greek cities, the legal
privileges of the Jewish po/iteuma are to be explained and the explanation
rests firmly on the notion that it is fundamentally misleading to draw a
sharp dividing line between ‘administration’ and ‘jurisdiction’.

There remains the difficult issue of the precise status of this hetero-
geneous mass of institutions vis-a-vis the Roman law. Here no certainty is
possible, especially for the early period of Roman rule. But it seems likely
that, in practice, Roman law will have been applied as a natural and
appropriate privilege to those of the highest status in the province;
others further down the social order might benefit according to the
choice of those officials applying it. The continued existence and validity
of peregrine laws and institutions is natural and convenient; Roman law
and legal institutions are superimposed and become more pervasive as
time goes on. These would not necessarily displace or invalidate local
laws automatically; the latter would retain their applicability as ‘the laws
of the Egyptians’ unless removed or modified for some specific reason
and the notion that their status was merely that of ‘customs’ rather than
‘law’, stricto sensu, seems to be based on a rather austere view of what, in
practice, constituted law.58 The practical proposition is thus that we are
dealing with a continuum of institutions, whose legal or judicial
operations correspond roughly to the administrative pattern in the
country and the range of social status and legal privilege in the various
groups of the population.

III. ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

An attempt at a brief description of Egyptian economic and social
institutions and practices under the early Roman Empire has to proceed
from a somewhat conjectural base. The population of the province may
have reached 7.5 million by the Flavian period, with Alexandria
accounting for perhaps another half a million, though it has recently

57 BGU 136; PMélVog/ 229.
58 For differing views see Brunt 1975 (£ 906) 132-6 and Modrzejewski 1970 (£ 951) esp. 331-4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

694 14b. EGYPT

been argued that this estimate is far too high.5? The ability of the
agricultural base to feed this population can only be reckoned by
approximation. Thus, éf a figure of 9 million arourai (¢. 2.5 million
hectares) under cultivation is plausible; ifthe fertility of the land ensured
an average ten-fold yield; if the subsistence requirement of the popula-
tion in wheat equivalent were about 60 million artabs, that is about 3.3
billion litres (disregard of peripheral sources of food and other revenue-
generating activities compensates for the fact that all land did not
produce food of as high calorific value as wheat), the surplus would still
be considerable. It will be correspondingly greater if our estimate of
the population is lower or if we regard as an overestimate the statement
of a fourth-century source which suggests that Egypt shipped 20 million
modii of grain a year to Rome — surely enough to pay for government
expenditure in the province even without any guess at the volume of
cash revenue raised from other economic activities.61 However we may
rationalize or dismiss these estimates, the fact is that Egypt was
indisputably a very wealthy province.

Management of the agricultural base was the foundation of this
wealth. A very significant feature of the Roman period is the great
increase in private ownership of land, perhaps as much as 50 per cent in
some areas, though proportions clearly varied greatly.® Private land,
directly managed or farmed through lease and tenancy, stood cheek by
jowl with public land, rented to public tenants (demosioi georgoi) and with
imperial land farmed by tenants or sometimes let in larger parcels to chief
lessees(misthotai); an individual farmer might cultivate land in more than
one of these categories and the unit of cultivation was probably in
general small rather than large: even the holdings of wealthy landowners
often tended to be fragmented.® A holding of 5 or 6 arourai of land might
be a reasonable estimate of what an average family would need for bare
subsistence.

Productivity depended on the annual inundation and management of
the irrigation system was therefore crucial. Private owners shouldered
the responsibility for this on their own land, whilst the public dykes and
canals were maintained by the introduction of the regular dyke-corvée as
a compulsory service for the peasantry. As well as the staple cereals, a
great variety of fodder crops, legumes, vines, olives and other garden
produce was grown. Much labour came in the form of tenants and their

59 Joseph. BJ 11.38 5-6; Diod. xvit.5 2.6; for a higher estimate of the Alexandrian population see
Fraser 1972 (£ 921) 90-1. Rathbone 1990 (£ 961). 60 Bowman 1990 (£ gor) App. II.

61 [Aur. Viet.] Epit. de Caes. 1.6, cf. Garnsey ef a/. 1983 (D 130) 119, Rathbone 1990 (E 961).

62 WChr 341 (63 per cent private land at Naboo in Apollonopolis Heptakomias in the early
second century); PBoxriant 42 (29 per cent private land at Hiera Nesos in the Fayum in 167).

63 POxy 2873 (Seneca); POxy 3047 (Calpurnia Heraclia).

6 Bowman 1990 (E 901) App. II.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ECONOMY AND SOCIETY 695

families but there is substantial evidence for wage-labour, some of which
was surely provided by these same tenants; only a small proportion of the
required labour was supplied by the limited number of slaves employed
on the land.® This suggests a picture which is rather different from the
traditional notion of a peasant society supporting itself by subsistence
farming and the evidence of the papyri makes it clear that even modest
landholders, who might produce little or no overall surplus in a year
would have to trade off surpluses in some crops or commodities to make
good deficits in others. Exchange of goods and agricultural produce was
thus universal and warns us against an oversimplified economic model
which relegates trade and commerce to a purely ‘secondary’ role in
comparison with ‘primary’ agricultural activity. Transportation and
commercial services were essential to move goods from village to town,
or village to village and the widespread use of coin, even in villages,
suggests that barter was by no means a dominant feature in economic
transactions.

In fact, in Egypt the relationship between town and countryside was
very close indeed and any distinction between the agricultural economy
on the one hand and trade, industry and commerce on the other is likely
to be very misleading. The ubiquitous taxes on trades and the variety of
goods and services available not only in the metropoleis but also in the
larger villages of the Fayum like Tebtunis, Karanis and Philadelphia
attest to a great range of small-scale activity in trade and manufacture
with the concomitant existence of transport, banking and commercial
services. These facilitated both the movement of goods to market
centres accessible to the people who earned their livelihood from the
land, and the payment and delivery of taxes. At the same time, however,
there are manufacturing enterprises like linen-weaving and pottery-
making which are much more intimately linked to the agricultural
economy and these are often found in villages or even on sizeable
individual estates. It is worth emphasizing that an agricultural economy
of the kind described could not have existed at all without these services.
The evidence from the Roman period may be misleading but it does
suggest an increase in this kind of economic activity, as also in trade over
greater distances, especially in the luxury items of the eastern trade which
entered Egypt via the ports of the Red Sea coast to be routed thence
across the desert to Coptos and downriver to Alexandria.67 With the
relaxation of the rigid state control imposed by the Ptolemaic monarchs

65 PLond 131 verso (Johnson 1936 (E 940) no. 105) (A.D. 78/79).

6 PMichTeb 121-8, 237-42 (reign of Claudius).

$7 Tllustrated generally by the Periplous maris Erythraei (ed. W.H. Schoff, New York, 1912 and L.
Casson, Baltimore, 1988); Pliny, HN vt.1ot attests 50 million sesterces-worth of annual trade with
India and Arabia; for exhaustive documentation see Raschke 1978 (c 298), Sidebotham 1986 (c 310).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

696 14b. EGYPT

in the form of so-called monopolies, there was certainly greater scope for
private enterprise.

By contrast, it might plausibly be maintained that there was a greater
degree of social control in the Roman period. The tendency to classify
the population according to status, privilege and obligation becomes
much more clearly marked, as the Gnomon of the Idios Logos shows.® In
one important respect this was essential to the structure of government
because it was intimately bound up with the spread of Roman law and
the introduction of institutions like the provincial census, the metropoli-
tan magistracies and the liturgical system. Whilst most of the Greco-
Egyptian populace were designated simply as Aigyptioi (though not
necessarily prevented from improving their status), the higher status of
metropolites was reflected, for instance, in lower rates of poll-tax.
Within the metropolis, the Romans created a higher order, the gymnasial
class which was part of the development which saw the gymnasia
become public instead of private institutions, and the creation of
magisterial archai. This order was based on the drawing up of a list of
such privileged metropolites in a.p. 4/5, henceforth to be perpetuated by
admission procedures (epikrisis) which required prospective entrants to
document their pedigree (though the degree of intermarriage between
Greeks and Egyptians in the Ptolemaic period must have ensured that
the ‘purity’ of this Greek class was to a considerable extent notional).

All the citizens of the ‘Greek cities’ enjoyed such status because of the
very nature of their communities. Other Egyptians could obtain
citizenship of Alexandria, which possessed an additional unique feature
in being, for Aigyptioi, a necessary prerequisite to Roman citizenship
(except for veteran soldiers); this presumably served to ensure a
sufficient degree of ‘hellenization’.6 Thus there must have existed the
possibility of qualification by residence and status and there is evidence,
lower down the social scale, for a good deal of population movement
between villages and towns which shows that people were by no means
immutably tied to their origo. Nevertheless, the number of people who
attained Roman citizenship was presumably quite small in the early
period and perhaps predominantly composed of veteran soldiers, at least
in the chora where their high status and relative wealth must have made
them, as in many other provinces, an important element in the scenario
of town and village life.

There were, of course, other status categories apart from these. The
groups of Jews in the towns of the chora enjoyed religious privileges and

68 BGU 1210.

69 Pliny, Ep. x.6; on the difficult questions of Alexandrian status see Sherwin-White, ad. /oc., el-
Abbadi 1962 (£ 888) (not commanding universal agreement), Fraser 1972 (E 921) 91, 796.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ECONOMY AND SOCIETY 697

the large and important Jewish community of Alexandria was organized
in a separate politeuma with quasi-public institutions. There were
freedmen, some indigenous, others perhaps immigrants who settled in
Egypt after employment in the emperor’s service, and attainment of the
status of Roman freedman (not available to freed slaves of Greco-
Egyptians) will have placed a person high in the social order. The slave
class, from which they rose, was never very large in Egypt and in this
respect there appears to have been little change by comparison with the
Ptolemaic period. For what it is worth the evidence suggests that their
presence was more marked in the domestic context than the agricultural.
Women constituted the other main underprivileged sector of the
population. The privileges which were extended to them in Roman law
will have applied to only a few at first and they are not radically different
from what may be observed elsewhere. One significant factor, which is
both local and pre-Roman, is the effect of Egyptian or Greco-Egyptian
inheritance practices which concentrated more property in the hands of
women than elsewhere (perhaps about 30 per cent) but the effects of this
should not be overestimated; women perhaps more commonly inherited
domestic goods and movables if they had brothers and their participa-
tion in economic transactions in general has been seen as an indicator of
economic hardship in the family or community.7? More significant,
perhaps, in this context is the closeness of family structure and the
phenomenon of consanguineous marriage, a practice whose importance
in preserving the integrity of family property must have outweighed any
natural revulsion against it.

The Roman presence made relatively little impact on the cultural and
religious patterns in the chora. Use of Latin is apparent in military
documents and spread on a minor scale amongst veterans. Some legal
documents required Latin, there are a few private letters and even the
odd literary text.”! But the major feature continues to be the interaction
between native Egyptian and Greek cultural patterns. Literacy in Greek
was perhaps quite widely pervasive (even though it will never have been
possessed by more than a small percentage of the population as a whole),
and Greek literary texts dominate the papyrological legacy with relati-
vely little evidence of direct influence in either direction. But the use of
hieroglyphic and demotic is still noticeable in the early period. The
interaction between demotic and Greek can be seen in Greek translations
of demotic literature made in the Roman period and the bilingual

70 See Hobson 1983 (E 934), 1984 (E 93$)-

"1 PMich 467-72; POxy 3208; PRy/ 608 with Rea, CE 43 (1968) 373-4; FIR A 111 8; fora corpus of
Latin non-literary papyri see CPL; for literary texts see Pack 1965 (E 955), 2917~52 and the useful
citations in Anderson, Parsons and Nisbet 1979 (B 4) n. 43.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

698 146. EGYPT

business texts, though now less numerous than in the Ptolemaic period,
show that there was an important area of overlap within which both
language groups could function.”

As for religion, the major distinction had always been that between
Greek and Egyptian cult and this the Romans preserved. The native
temples submitted to more stringent state control, losing economic
power, but the innumerable Egyptian cults and the traditional caste-like
character of the priestly and other temple offices survived well into the
Christian period.’3 The Greek cults which proliferated under the
Ptolemies also remained strong, especially in the villages of the Fayum,
but they were, as is characteristic, much more closely linked to civic
institutions than the Egyptian, their priests more analogous to local
magistrates and drawn from the upper strata of the Greco-Egyptian
populace. The difference is strikingly illustrated by the fact that civil
administrators might participate in libations in a gymnasium or a
Caesareum, or make sacrifices to the Greco-Egyptian river-god Neilos
but could only be passive spectators at Egyptian rites or processions.”4

Roman cults and temples of Roman divinities, notably Jupiter
Capitolinus, did eventually make some perceptible mark, but hardly at
all before the third century; a veteran soldier is even found celebrating
the Saturnalia in about A.D. 100,’5 but these novelties surely did little to
disrupt existing patterns. Some adaptation was required in a more
general way. The Roman prefect would make sacrifices to the Nile, as the
Pharaohs had done, and avoid sailing on the river when it was rising.
The emperor had to be accommodated, as Pharaoh, in the traditional
institutions, whether on a temple relief or a stela recording the instal-
lation of a sacred bull (and the emperor Titus (A.D. 79-81), indeed, did
attend such a ceremony in person).’6 Above all, there was cult of the
Roman emperor, visible at Alexandria in the great Caesareum (begun by
Cleopatra for Antony) and the existence of a group of freedmen
Caesariani, and in the acclamation of Germanicus or Vespasian as a god
(the latter as son of Amon and Sarapis incarnate).’? Caesarea were
established in the towns of the delta and valley too, the emperor became a
god and his name a natural element in the swearing of an oath. Outside
those institutions which were specific to imperial cult, it is a matter of
intrusion and supervenience as local Greek and (to a much lesser extent)
Egyptian cults accommodated to the new order.

72 E.g. PLugd-bat 19. 26-8; OLeidDem, passim, ORom 8 (cf. n. to line 7), 16, 25, 46-7; West, JE.A

55 (1969) 161-83.
73 Chaeremon, fr. 10 (ed. P.W. Van der Horst, EPRO 101, Leiden, 1984); BGU 1210, sections

71-96. ™ Chr 41; POxy 1211.
75 BGU 362; PMilVogl/ 233; SB 4282; CbLA 10, 11; PFay 119.
% Sen. ONat. 4a.2.7; Pliny, HN v.37; Suet. Tit. 5.3. 7 WCbr 112; CPJ 4r8a.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ALEXANDRIA 699

IV. ALEXANDRIA

The fact that official terminology marked out the great city of Alexandria
as separate from the Egyptian chora indicates the justification for giving it
special attention. The city certainly reached its apogee in the Roman
period. Strabo, who visited it early in the reign of Augustus in the
company of the prefect Aelius Gallus, pays resounding tribute to its
physical splendours, makes special mention of the suburb of Nicopolis,
added under the Romans, and notes the volume of waterborne trade,
particularly that carried upriver to the towns of the delta and the valley.
The Alexandrian Oration of Dio of Prusa, delivered early in the Flavian
period, emphasizes its economic importance and pays less than flattering
attention to the vibrancy of public entertainment and the volatility of the
mob.’8 Since Alexandria remained the administrative capital under the
Romans, that volatility could have an important impact. The prefect
Petronius was almost stoned to death by the mob; Germanicus accepted
extravagant acclamations in a.D. 19 but was concerned to control public
demonstrations of his divinity; the Tiberian prefect Galerius took his
wife to Egypt with him but she never set foot outside the official
residence or admitted a provincial into it.”? After Augustus, who alleged
that after Actium he had only spared the city as a favour to his
Alexandrian friend Areius, emperors (or pretenders) were liable to take
some trouble to appear beneficent and conciliatory.8°

The main motives for this were doubtless political but emperors
cannot have been unaware of Alexandria’s immense economic import-
ance throughout the early imperial period. Its role in the shipment of
Rome’s corn supply was only one aspect of this. Its central importance
for the papyrus industry, the manufacture of glassware, mosaics and
works of art and the transport of grain is badly documented but cannot
be doubted and emphasizes its contribution to the profitable exploitation
of indigenous resources. Goods of Alexandrian manufacture found their
way to all parts of the Roman world as well as to areas beyond the
southern frontier of Egypt. The perfume and jewellery industries and
the spice trade point to its significance as the main entrepot of the
Mediterranean littoral for the great volume of luxury goods imported
from the East.

The cultural climate was to change somewhat by comparison with the
Prolemaic period for the days of open-handed royal patronage had long
gone. But the Museum remained important, albeit swelled by an
admixture of members distinguished for administrative rather than

% Strab. xvu.1.8-10 (793~5C); Dio Chrys. xxx11.36, 55, 59, 62.
7 Strab. xvit.1.53 (819C); POxy 2435.1-28; EJ? 320; Sen. Dial. x11.19.6.
© Plut. Ant. 80; POxy 3022; SB 10295.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

7oo 145. EGYPT

intellectual pursuits. The Royal Library and the ‘daughter’ library in the
Serapeum survived too, the losses of books incurred in the Alexandrian
War partly compensated by Antony’s gift to Cleopatra of the collection
of the royal library of Pergamum. In the Roman period the practitioners
of literature were not to attain the same eminence as their predecessors of
the Ptolemaic era. The literary pursuits were to yield pride of place to the
philosophical for Alexandrian philosophy was greatly enriched by the
influx of immigrants after the sack of Athens by Sulla. In the Julio-
Claudian period the most distinguished philosopher was Philo, member
of a prominent Jewish family and uncle of Tiberius Iulius Alexander; his
works, along with those of the other Middle Platonists, point forward to
the second century when the foundations of Christian theology and
philosophy were to be laid in the interaction of Christian doctrine with
the Platonic tradition, with gnosticism and with the legacy of Jewish
thought.

At the same time, Alexandria retained her established pre-eminence in
the traditional areas of scientific endeavour, among which the develop-
ment and practice of medicine stands out. In the second century Galen of
Pergamum studied there and Alexandria’s reputation in this field was
still paramount in Ammianus Marcellinus’ day. The same is true of the
applied scientific disciplines, particularly engineering. In the middle of
the second century, the dominant figure was Claudius Ptolemaeus,
whose writings reveal an astonishing range of expertise — in mathemat-
ics, astronomy, music, optics, geography and cartography. His A/ma-
gest, the most comprehensive ancient astronomical work, is heavily
influenced by Aristotelian doctrines and attempts to account for the
movements of the moon and planets within the concept of geocentric
system. In his treatise on optics he describes extensive experimentation
with the phenomena of reflection and refraction of light. In his
geographical work he amassed a mine of invaluable physical and
topographical information, as well as discussing the principles of
cartography and projection.

In the early imperial period, however, the peaceful arts were over-
shadowed by uglier events. At the root of the disturbances were the
issues arising from the state of Alexandria’s civic institutions, the
privileges and aspirations of the large and important Jewish community
and the relations between the Greeks and the Jews. Alexandria had
almost certainly possessed a council (Jou/e) under the early Ptolemies;
when this privilege was removed is a matter of dispute (the reign of
Ptolemy VIII Euergetes Physcon and the Augustan period are the most
likely candidates), but it was presumably intended to neutralize the
political power of the citizen body. Certainly it did not have a boule in the
early imperial period and the ‘Boule Papyrus’, probably to be dated to

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ALEXANDRIA JO!

the reign of Augustus, shows Alexandrian ambassadors petitioning for
its reinstatement on the grounds that it would safeguard imperial
revenues and enable the local magistrates to ensure the purity of the
Alexandrian citizen body by protecting it against infiltration by ‘the
uncultured and uneducated’, probably a veiled reference to the Jews, or
that part of the Jewish community which showed overt tendencies to
hellenize. A reiterated request to Claudius, which provoked the famous
‘Letter to the Alexandrians’ shows that Augustus had not yielded;
neither did Claudius and Alexandria was not to recover its boule until the
reign of Septimius Severus when the privilege was considerably diluted
by the fact that the metropoleis of the nomes received boulai as well.8!

In the mean time, there had been serious trouble between Jews and
Greeks in the late 30s and early 40s, vividly described, no doubt with
some partiality, by Philo. The Greeks were organized in guilds and cult
associations; attempts were made to put statues of the emperor in
synagogues, Jewish houses were overrun and looted, victims were
dragged out and burned, torn limb from limb in the market-place or
scourged and executed in the theatre. Rival delegations went to Rome to
plead their respective cases. Philo, who was himself a member of the
Jewish embassy describes how his party pursued the deranged emperor
Gaius from Rome to the Bay of Naples and waited for a hearing whilst
the emperor enjoyed himself in his seaside villas.82 Reports of the
opposing case take a much stranger form than the Legatio ad Gaium — the
so-called Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs, semi-fictional accounts, based,
in form at least, on genuine documentary reports of ambassadorial
proceedings, which purport to give verbatim reports of the audience of
the Alexandrian Greek notables before the emperor and their revilement
of the Alexandrian Jews. There is certainly a factual foundation in these
martyr-acts, as the names of the dramatis personae show, but it is perhaps
of equal significance that the historical contexts in which they are set run
down to the reign of Commodus and that in the later examples the anti-
Jewish element is absent or subordinate to the expression of anti-Roman
feeling. This, together with the fact that all the copies of such acts which
have survived were written in the late second or early third centuries
A.D., probably tells us more about Alexandrian nationalistic attitudes at
that time than about the historical events.®> But we cannot doubt that the
unrest of the Jewish community was a significant factor, still felt a
quarter of a century after Claudius’ letter when they rebelled in sympathy
with the outbreak of revolt in Judaea and even more so fifty years later in
the great revolt of A.D. 116-17 which saw the virtual annihilation of the
Jews in Alexandria and the chora.4

81 CPJ 150, 153, cf. ch. 14d. 2 Philo, Leg. 120-31, 184-5.
83 Musurillo 1954 (B 381). & Barnes 1989 (E 1087).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

702 145. EGYPT

Vv. CONCLUSION

The Roman annexation of Egypt in 30 B.c. was an event of the greatest
historical significance, marking as it did, the conclusion of the struggle
for supremacy between Octavian and Antony and the elimination of the
last of the powerful hellenistic kingdoms. Egypt’s role as a province in
Rome’s empire was of immediate importance, largely because of the
enormous wealth which it generated. This, together with the fact that it
is uniquely well documented, has induced modern scholars to go too far
in according it a special status and, in doing so, they have tended to
emphasize the perseverance of the peculiar administrative and economic
features of Ptolemaic Egypt, allowed by the characteristic /aissex-faire
attitude of the Roman government.

In fact, the opportunity to examine in some detail the process of
creation of a Roman province provides a corrective to this view. The
terminology of the Ptolemaic period survives in many areas, but there
are fundamental changes of such importance that it is seriously mislead-
ing to posit a vague and general continuity from Ptolemaic to Roman
Egypt. The institutions and structures of central and local government
were radically altered. The creation of a ‘Greek’ magisterial class in the
nome-capitals introduced a type of local civic government previously
unknown. With it came the introduction of a new and wide-ranging
liturgical system. These features, in turn, rest upon the creation of a
wholly different kind of propertied class from that of the Ptolemaic
period, one which is based largely on the Roman introduction of genuine
and widespread private ownership of land (ge idiotike). With that we may
link fundamental changes in the taxation system, to which the introduc-
tion of the Roman census was a necessary adjunct. The combined
importance of census, property and social status will inevitably focus
attention on that feature of Romanization which encapsulates all aspects
of the Roman social and economic system, the spread of Roman law.

These changes can all clearly be traced to the Augustan period.
Emphasis on their importance need not blind us to the continuities — in
the character of the agricultural economy, in religion, in Egyptian
culture. A balanced account will give due emphasis both to the
continuities and the changes. During the Augustan era the role of Egypt
in the empire for the next three centuries was determined. That role was
again to change radically only with the coming of Christianity and in
response to the very different political and economic conditions of the
late third century.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 14¢

SYRIA

DAVID KENNEDY

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Prologue

Pompey’s annexation in 64 B.C. of what remained of Seleucid Syria after
the fratricidal struggles of the preceding century, introduced into the
Semitic Near East a Roman rule which was to endure for seven centuries.
Moreover, as a development and extension of a long period of hellenistic
rule, it represented the greater part of almost a millennium of Greco-
Roman political dominance and cultural influence. Throughout this
long period, however, underlying the Greco-Roman veneer, local
indigenous language and culture retained their vitality, to be released in
the seventh century by the renewed political dominance of a Semitic
people. The point is neatly illustrated by the re-appearance under Islam
of many place-names, for centuries overlain by official Greek or Roman
ones, but which had apparently remained in oral use amongst the native
population.!

Yet Roman rule did make an impact in many ways which helped
determine the distinctive character of this part of the Near East for
several centuries. The creation of conditions of peace and political
stability, the unification of the region, the reconciliation of its population
to Roman rule and the subsequent participation and influence of many
Syrians — most strikingly the Emesene ruling family (below, p. 731) —in
and on the developing government and civilization of the Roman
Empire, are all the work of the first three centuries.

The history of Syria in the two and half centuries after Pompey’s
settlement is dominated by three major themes. First, the establishment
and development of a Roman province, and the influence and conse-
quences of its role as the major military province of the East. Second, the
character and role of the client states, their evolution, then disappear-
ance. And third, the gradual emergence and flowering under the
influence of the pax romana of a prosperous, more unified culture,

' Beroea, once Harabu is again Halab; Epiphania, once Hamath is now Hama; and Philadelphia,
once Rabbatamana is again Amman: cf. Jones 1971 (D 96) 231. Cf. Joseph. Aj 1.121, 138.

793

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Map 18. Physical geography of the Near East.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

INTRODUCTION 795§

essentially Semitic in character but with a Greco-Roman influence clear
to some extent in each of its many facets.

None of this, however, occurred in a vacuum. Geography and
previous historical development all played a part. Moreover, what may
be said about any one of them is not just a matter of its relative
importance in the Julio-Claudian or Flavian-Antonine period, but is
constrained by the nature and distribution of the evidence.?

2. Physical and human geography

The geographical unit known in antiquity as Syria, was bounded on two
sides by the Mediterranean and the Taurus Mountains; in the south and
east there lay the Sinai and North Arabian and Syrian Deserts into whose
fringes it merged; and finally, in the north east, though often limited
politically by the bend of the Euphrates, north-western Mesopotamia as
far as the river Khabur should be included. It is an immense area of some
half million square kilometres (Map 18).

It is not possible to detect any fundamental changes in the appearance
of the landscape or in the climate since Classical Antiquity. There have,
however, been some notable alterations. Thus, deforestation — already
far advanced in the pre-classical period — has been taken still further and
erosion has destroyed once arable hill terraces; a wetter period in Late
Antiquity washed soils away, creating in the lower reaches of water
courses what is today called the Younger Fill, overlying ancient remains
or making their current location hard to understand.3

2 The foremost literary source for the period treated in this volume is Josephus (Jewish War and
Antiquities (xtv onwards)), although his focus is primarily on Judaea and matters relating to Jewish
communities in Syria. Tacitus and Cassius Dio have several long passages, though mainly
concerned with military matters. Strabo (Geog. xvi (737-85¢)) provides an important description of
Syria and some commentary and the Elder Pliny has valuable — though at times anachronistic —
information (HIN v.13-22). Brief but useful references are also to be found in numerous other
sources, most notably Appian, Caesar, Cicero, Malalas (see now the new English translation by
Jeffreys et al. 1986 (B 92)), Nicolaus of Damascus, Philo, Plutarch (Vitae), Suetonius and Velleius
Paterculus.

For corpora of Latin (several hundred) and Greek (several thousand) texts, the bedrock continues
to be the relevant parts of CIL mand IGRR 111. However, many of these as well as newer texts are to
be found in the volumes of IGLS and Jord. Many others are published in AE. Cf. the survey by van
Rengen 1978 (B 268). Inscriptions in Semitic languages may be traced in the volumes of CIS;
additionally, Palmyrene texts (some 1,000) are being collected in Inventaire des Inscriptions de Palmyre,
and Nabataean (several thousand) and Safaitic (¢. 15,000 published of an estimated 100,000)
collections are also in progress.

For coins, Wruck 1931 (B 363) continues to be useful, as are the Arabia, Syria, Palestine and
Phoenicia volumes of the BMC, to which may now be added volumes of SNG. Valuable recent
corpora are those of Kindler 1983 (B 331), Meshorer 1975 (B 343), and Spijkerman 1978 (B 353).

Note also the publications of the American (4.4 ES) and Princeton (PAES) expeditions to Syria
and R.E. Brannow and A. von Domaszewski, Die Provincia Arabia (Strassburg, 1904-9). The results
of some major excavations are summarized and discussed in Ward-Perkins 1981 (F 615). Field
surveys are of increasing importance, not least those of Saudi Arabia reported in the journal Atia/,

3 Vita-Finzi 1969 (£ 1068); Bintliff 1982 (E 989); Raikes 1985 (E. 1053).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

706 14¢. SYRIA

The typical Mediterranean climate of the coastal belt — hot dry
summers and mild wet winters, gives way to the harsher extremes of
great heat and little rainfall in the deserts to the east and south. The land
varies from the fertile plain of eastern Cilicia and the narrow coastal belt
of the Levant, across the mountain ranges of the Amanus, Bargylus and
Lebanon, which parallel the coast, to the broad belt of first pre-desert,
then desert, which stretch beyond. In the west and north, rainfall,
supplemented by snow-melt and rivers, is sufficient for dry farming.
Some small rivers flow down from the coastal ranges but the major rivers
of the region all rise beyond them. The Orontes flows through a broad
fertile valley with major cities along its course, before passing through to
the coast between Amanus and Bargylus; the Leontes, far less attractive
to urban development, also eventually flowed west into the Mediterra-
nean. The Jordan, however, runs south through the Sea of Galilee,
dropping below sea level before flowing into the Dead Sea, the rift valley
continuing as the broad waterless trough of the Wadi Araba then the
Gulf of Aqaba.

The whole broadening curve of land from the Sinai north-eastwards
to the mountains of Armenia, is desert, largely devoid of any perennial
water source. The major exception is the valley of the Euphrates which,
together with its tributaries on the north, the Balikh and Khabur, offered
a ribbon of rich well-watered land on either bank. A major problem,
however, was that after flowing south parallel with the coast opposite
Antioch, the river turned first east then south east, away from the
Mediterranean, to flow eventually into the Persian Gulf, leaving a huge
unwatered expanse of land, on both sides, but principally that stretching
off to the south. There, with the exception of Palmyra, the few springs
could offer only modest settlement attractions.

There are rich agricultural lands in northern Syria, in the Hauran, in
Galilee and in the land immediately east of the Jordan. Even the pre-
desert and parts of the desert can be farmed, though there the principal
determinant is the availability of water. In practice that means a reliable
minimum annual z0omm of rainfall; when traced on the map, this
isohyet helps to explain a great deal about the shape and development of
the directly administered Roman province which emerged, and the
location of client states.4 The line, of course, has never been static and
farming did not necessarily everywhere stop at it nor even reach it; land
in this ‘border’ area has gone in and out of use with periodic climatic
fluctuations, the level of political security and population pressures,

* Scholars are generally agreed that while there has been no significant change in climate since
Classical Antiquity, there have probably been minor changes which could have disproportionately
large impacts in marginal areas.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

INTRODUCTION JO7

while, given suitable soil, rainfall could be and was ‘harvested’ in areas
with far less than zoomm.5

Hill slopes, and poorly watered regions of steppe and desert provided
attractive grazing for animals but these supported a less settled and
thinner population. Settlement pattern was influenced too by the
presence of natural resources other than soil and fresh water: thus the
fisheries on the Mediterranean coast and Sea of Galilee, the timber of the
Lebanon, and the salt and bitumen of the Dead Sea.6 Trade too: Syria
was sandwiched between the great centres of early civilization in Egypt
and Anatolia~-Mesopotamia; its own geography determined that the
coast of the Levant, and routes across northern Mesopotamia, along the
Euphrates, across the desert through such oases as Palmyra and Jauf,
and up the eastern shore of the Red Sea, would all remain obvious lines
of communication between Iran and the Mediterranean, Egypt and
Anatolia.”

The population was overwhelmingly Semitic. Within this group, four
major elements can be identified by the criteria of language and, in one
case, religion. In the south west lay the Jews of Judaea and the semi-
Judaized Arabs of Idumaea and Ituraea;® other Jewish communities,
some extensive, were to be found in every city of Syria (below, p. 708 and
724). North of Judaea lay the Phoenicians, notably in the great coastal
trading cities from Arados to Tyre. The Arabs were located on the
eastern fringes of the province, the outcome of over two millennia of
migration from the Arabian Peninsula into not just Syria but across
Mesopotamia and as far as the Taurus and Zagros mountains. Between
and to some extent intermingled with the others, lay the earlier Aramaic
population. People of Greek stock were the major intrusive element —
many by now of mixed blood — and largely to be found in the cities,
especially those of North Syria.

Linguistically, Aramaic was dominant — the ‘Syrian language’,
employed even in Judaea where Hebrew was used only for liturgical
purposes. The peoples of Edessa, Palmyra and Arabia Petraea all had
written versions of their spoken languages, Aramaic dialects which seem
to have been a proto-Arabic. Likewise the Safaitic and Thamudic graffiti
of the nomadic tribes of central and southern Syria are probably a
primitive Arabic. As elsewhere in the East, Greek was common —
though far from universal — amongst the urban populations.

5 For more recent and better documented periods see Hiitteroth and Abdulfattah 1977 (£ 1013);
Lewis 1987 (E 1034).

§ Heichelheim 1938 (£ 1012); cf. the handbooks of the Naval Intelligence Division, Syria (1943)
and Palestine and Transjordan (1943). 7 Teixidor 1984 (£ 1066) 19-45.

* Both groups had probably become mixed with the pre-existing Aramaic population: Schiirer
1973 (E1207) 1 562; Dussaud 1955 (£ 1007); 163ff; in general, Millar 1987 (£ 1039).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

708 14¢. SYRIA

At no time do we know the size of the population. Locally we know
that Apamea (and its territory) had 117,000 ‘citizens’ (probably only
males and females of tax-paying age) at the time of Aemilius Secundus’
census in A.D. 6;9 and Antioch, said by Strabo to be little smaller than
Alexandria or Seleucia on the Tigris, probably had a population, in city
and country, of several hundred thousand.!° A rough guide to the size of
some city populations may be drawn from Josephus’ references to the
size of their Jewish minorities, e.g. the 10,500 slaughtered in Damascus
in A.D. 66.1! Precise figures are given for the military contribution of
various kings (cf. below, p. 730 and 732), e.g. 5,ooo Commagenians sent
to join Cestius Gallus in a.p. 66.'2 Likewise, we can estimate quite
confidently the overall size of the Roman forces (40—50,000 in the Julio-
Claudian period). From all of these one can roughly infer a probable
population for Syria inclusive of the allied states in the first century A.D.
of at least two or three million.'3

II. ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROVINCE

1. Introduction

The terms of Pompey’s settlement of the East had created a provincia of
Syria the government of which embraced both a narrow territorial
province and, in practice, supervision of the conduct of a number of
allied rulers in the region (Map 19). The province was a modest part of
geographical Syria: essentially those cities of the region to which a wide
range of functions could be delegated under the Roman system of
provincial administration. Thus, the ‘Greek’ cities of the Syrian Tetra-
polis in the north'* and of the Decapolis in the south,'5 and the city-states
of the Phoenician coast.'6 Few were more than 10okm from the coast.
The allied rulers were widely spread, extending in an arc from the

9 ILS 2683. The meaning of the term bomin. civium is discussed by Cumont 1934 (£ 996).

10 Strab. xv1.2.5 (7§0C); the implications of various references to population at Antioch are
discussed by Downey 1958 (£ 1005).

1 Joseph. BJ 11.5 59-61; cf. 461-5 and 477-80 for the numbers massacred in other cities.

12 Joseph. BJ 11.5;00f. A crude estimate of population size may be drawn from the proportion of
population in a pre-industrial society which could be supported as a professional army. The figure
has been given as not more than 5 per cent, although the German Constitution of 1871 prescribed 1
per cent. For Commagene this would suggest a total population of between 100,000 and 500,000.

'3 Census figures for the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon in the 1930s gave a
total of almost 4 million inclusive of nomads: Naval Intelligence Handbook, Syria, 191.

14 Antioch, Apameia, Seleucia and Laodicea: Strab. xvi.2.4 (749C); cf. xvi.2.8-10 (7§2-3C).

'S Canatha, Damascus, Dion, Gadara, Gerasa, Hippos, Pella, Philadelphia, Raphanaea and
Scythopolis, are listed by the Elder Pliny (HN v.16); the additional names which seem to be
provided by Ptolemy (Georg. v.15.22—3) should probably not be included: Schiirer 1979 (£ 1207) 1
125-7.

16 Principally Aradus, Tripolis, Byblus, Berytus, Sidon and Tyre: Strab. xvi.2.13—24 (754-8C).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ESTABLISHMENT 7°9

Nabataean kingdom on the Red Sea to the Commagenian in the foothills
of the central Taurus Mts. But because Rome failed to provide
adequately for the security of eastern Anatolia, the Syrian governor also
exercised some supervision over states there as distant as Iberia and
Albania in the Caucasus.

Pompey’s settlement brought a new regime but no lasting peace or
stability during the succeeding generation. Within a decade, the disas-
trous campaign of Crassus (55-53 B.C.) had exposed the province to
invasion by Parthia. The renewed civil wars which followed in 49 B.c.
initiated a long period of insecurity, instability and exploitation for the
province. The great civil war battles were fought far to the west, but
their ripples were felt. For Syria that meant the rebellion of the Pompeian
Caecilius Bassus (47-44 B.c.)!7 and the opportunism of various Arab
phylarchs and Parthian mercenaries who had become involved;!8 Cas-
sius’ struggle with Dolabeila for control of the province (44-42 B.c.);!9
the denuding of the province of its troops and the consequent military
adventurism of at least one of Cassius’ appointees; Parthian occupation
and subsequent campaigns to drive them out (40—39);?! and the succes-
sion of campaigns of pacification — against the Jews, Commagene and
Arados.2 Above all, these years saw the systematic and unprincipled
extraction by a succession of Romans of much of the movable wealth of
the province, as advance taxation, ‘gifts’, indemnities and undisguised
robbery. Thus Laodicea, devastated by the siege of Cassius and its
subsequent sack (44-42), was then required to pay huge sums to his war
chest;3 the agents of Antony were killed at Arados which was then
subjected to a two-year siege (40—38);?4 and the Nabataeans were fined
for their sympathy for the invading Parthians.?5

The final turmoil came with Antony’s gifts to Cleopatra: all of
Phoenicia except Tyre and Sidon, the kingdom of Chalcis, and parts of
the kingdoms of Herod and the Nabataeans. Later, by the ‘Donations of
Alexandria’, these regions, as well as the overlordship of all of the client
kings of Syria, were transferred to their son, Ptolemy Philadelphus.”

The victory of Octavian opened the way for restoring stability and at
least creating the conditions which would allow a naturally wealthy
region to regain its prosperity. Antony’s gifts were of course nullified,

17 App. BCw. 111.77, Iv.58f; Cic. Fam. xu.11f, 17ff; Att. xtv.g9.3; Dio xLv11.26.3—-27.5; Joseph. AJ
xiv.268—72; BJ 1.216; Strab. xvi.2.10 (75 2C). '8 Dio xivit.27.3; Strab. xvi.2.10 (75 3¢).

19 App. BCw. tv.6off, 64, v.4; Dio xLvi1.29.1-30.5; Strab. xvi.2.9 (752).

2 App. BCw. 1v.63; Joseph. AJ xrv.297f.

21 Dio xivi.26.1f, xL1x.19.1-20.3; Joseph. AJ x1v.330~64; BJ 1.248-7o.

2 Jews: Dio xiix.22.3f; Joseph. AJ x1v.394-412; XIV.447; XIV.468-86; BJ 1.290-302, 345-57.
Arados: Dio xivii1.41.6, xL1x.22.3. Commagene: Dio xLtx.20.4—22.2

3 Dio xivit.30.2—7; App. BCw. 1v.61f; Cic. Fans. xit.132.4.

%* Eus. Chron. 11.139.i (ed. Schoene); Dio xiviit.24.3, 41.4~6, XLIX.22.3.
2% Dio xLviit.41.5. % Dio xxix.41; L.1.5; Plut. Aas. trv.3-6.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Map 19. Syria and Arabia.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ESTABLISHMENT Jit

but there was no change in the fundamental arrangements of the
previous generation which provided for a modest province under direct
government and a network of alliances with petty rulers in the rest of
Syria. However, within that basic formula much important reform and
re-organization was required; that was to be largely the contribution of
Augustus.

Relative to the preceding century, the Julio-Claudian period was one
of general peace. After Herod’s death in, probably, 4 B.c.,2” creation of
the new province of Judaea removed a major segment of Syria from day
to day supervision, though direct administration was soon extended to
eastern Cilicia, Commagene and, intermittently, parts of Ituraea and the
Hauran. Internally, although banditry seems to have been endemic in the
Herodian or former Herodian realms at least, security and order had
been enormously improved by the provision of a much enlarged and
permanent army (below, p. 715). With the important exception of
intervention in Judaea to calm passions or put down revolt, governors
had little worry over internal insurrection. Even the campaign of
Vitellius in 37 to punish the Nabataeans for their short ‘war’ with Herod
Antipas, and Petronius’ punitive expedition against the Jews, were
halted by the deaths of Tiberius and Gaius respectively.

But the large army of Syria was a recognition too of the external
threats — or opportunities — in the region. The expeditions of Aelius
Gallus deep into the Arabian Peninsula in 26/5 B.c.,28 and the obscure
expeditio Arabica of Gaius Caesar in a.p. 1,29 expanded direct Roman
familiarity with remote regions in the south and emphasized their
inclusion in her sphere of interest. The role of the governors of Syria in
very high level international diplomacy and in immediate dealings with
the Parthian Empire, cannot be underestimated. The defeat of Crassus
and the subsequent invasions of Syria, had inflicted a blow on Roman
prestige — and confidence — which were never to be expunged. However,
bullying and diplomatic successes enormously improved the local
perception of restored Roman power. The colourful pageantry of Gaius
Caesar’s meeting on the Euphrates with Phraates V in a.p. 1 described by
Velleius Paterculus, was only the first of three such high level meetings
in the period.® The province would have been scarcely less impressed by
the passage of Parthian hostages and royal refugees, and by the periodic

77 On the probable date of Herod’s death see Schiirer 1973 (E 1207) 1 326ff n. 165.

% Principally Strab. xv1.4.22f (780cf); cf. RG v.26; Pliny, HN v1.32.160f; Joseph. AJ xv.317;
Dio Lit1.29. 3-8.

2 Pliny, HN 11.168; vi.14t, 160, xit.55f, xxxm.10; FGrH 1 a 275, F 1-3. It has now been
suggested that this expedition resulted in the annexation, temporarily, of the Nabataean kingdom:
Bowersock 1983 (F 990) 5 4ff (cf. below, p. 732f).

© Vell. Pat. 11. 10.1; Joseph. 4J xvitt.101-3 and Suet. Vit. 2 (Vitellius’ meeting with Artabanus
in 37); Joseph. BJ vir.105 (Titus’ meeting with envoys of Vologases in 70); cf. Tac, Aan. 1.60
(Germanicus in 18).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

72 14¢. SYRIA

introduction by Rome of claimants to the Arsacid throne. Despite the
interventions in Armenia, the Parthian menace was controlled; there was
no direct conflict with Parthian troops until the reign of Nero, and no
threat to Syria’s borders materialized until the time of Marcus Aurelius.
The everyday management of relations with most of the nomad tribes
was in the hands of various allied rulers (below, p. 715).

2. Government, administration and security

In 27 B.c. the status of Syria was enhanced and fixed. As the most vital
and sensitive of the provinces assigned to Augustus in the East, it was
endowed with the largest army. The legateship, invariably to be held
henceforth by a person of consular standing, was the most powerful and
prestigious in Rome’s Asiatic provinces.

Syria’s very importance demanded the careful selection as governor of
men who were politically teliable. Novi homines like C. Sentius Saturninus,
P. Sulpicius Quirinius (characterized by Syme as one of the ‘safe men and
time-servers’), or great aristocrats like P. Quinctilius Varus and,
perhaps, L. Calpurnius Piso, probably selected because related, however
tenuously, to the dynasty. Moreover, the power of any governor was
qualified by the presence and character of the imperial procurator. Only
two are known in the early Principate, but both appear as powerful and
influential men, willing to demonstrate their independence of their
superior. Indeed, in the case of Sentius Saturninus and the procurator
Volumnius, they are paired several times by Josephus as ‘governors’ of
Syria.3!

There were other imperial appointees in the region. Quintus Servaeus
was given charge of Commagene after its annexation in a.D. 18,72 and
that may have been a common practice with many newly annexed
territories. The administration of some discrete regions of the province,
distant from Antioch, may likewise have been delegated. Thus, the
prefecture of the Decapolis found in the time of Domitian, may have had
its origins in the early Principate,* and there is a suggestion that the boule
and magistrates at Palmyra may have been largely directed in their
actions by a Roman Resident.* Finally, there were the men who
administered the imperial estates: Herennius Capito, the procurator of
Jamnia,>5 must have had colleagues administering the other imperial
properties in the region.

31 e.g. Joseph. AJ xv1.344: fous tes Surias begemonas. Syme 1974 (Cc 229)=(A 94) 915-

32 Tac. Ann. 11.56.5.

33 BCH 4(1880): 506ff; the suggestion is made by Isaac 1981 (F 1016).

* Teixidor 1984 (E 1066) 63f.

35 Joseph. AJ xvii.158 (cf. Philo, Leg. 199-202; AE 1941, 105). The career is discussed by
Pflaum 1960 (D 59) no. 9. The inscription describes him as procurator of the successive owners of the

property: Livia, Tiberius and Gaius; under this last, according to Philo, he was also tax-collector for
Judaea.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ESTABLISHMENT 713

The remoteness of Syria which could delay decision-making in Rome
by months, combined with an unwillingness to allow too great an
initiative to its governors, helps explain the employment and role in the
East of members of the imperial house and close associates. Agrippa (and
Augustus himself) in the early years of the Principate overhauled the
arrangements with client states (below, p. 728f). Later, first Varus then
Gaius Caesar were sent at a time of rising tension and internal upheavals
following the deaths of Herod and the Nabataean Obodas, and Germani-
cus was instrumental in supervising the annexation of Cappadocia and
Commagene, dealing with Arabia Petraea, the closer assimilation if not
annexation of Palmyra,* and for diplomatic exchanges with Parthia. His
diplomatic contact with Mesene at the head of the Persian Gulf must be
associated with stimulation of trade with the Far East; it cannot be
coincidence that the first attested Palmyrene caravans are of 19 and 24.37

With the exception of Corbulo’s appointment to the governorship
(A.D. 60-3), the actual ability and experience as administrators or soldiers
of most governors, was not of course a criterion in their selection. Some,
probably most, were corrupt and venal: we are told this explicitly of
Sentius Saturninus and Varus, though neither these nor any others are
known to have been prosecuted for misgovernment.*® Whether the
procurators were more experienced and able we cannot tell. The better
evidence for the prefects and procurators who governed Judaea does not
encourage optimism.%9

From the pages of Josephus we get a detailed picture of these men at
work. The administration of justice and keeping the peace were high on
the agenda of all governors. Some at least of the assize-centres outside
Antioch can be inferred: Berytus, Tyre, Damascus, Lydda and Jerusa-
lem; and we may suppose too Apamea, Laodicea, Tripolis and Sidon.
The complaints of the Jews against their procurator Cumanus,” the
intercession of Herod Agrippa I on behalf of the Jews of the city of Dora,
persecuted by their Gentile neighbours,‘! and the boundary dispute
between Damascus and Sidon,’ all provide interesting glimpses of some
of the preoccupations of the governor. Keeping the peace was, however,
more than just a matter of arbitrating in such disputes. Turbulent cities
like Antioch had to be policed,® religious festivals brought large

% The status of Palmyra vis-d-vis the Roman empire is much debated. See below, p. 720.

37 Teixidor 1984 (E 1066) 49.

38 Brunt 1961 (D 86); Cn. Piso was prosecuted for treason after attempting to regain control of the
province by armed force (Tac, Aan. 111.10). » Schirer 1973 (E 1207) 1 381-98, 455-70.

43 That Antioch and Apameia are conspicuously absent from the cities in which Jews were
massacred in 66 (above, p. 708 and n. 11) may reflect the long-standing grip the army had on those
places. Note the immediately calming effect on the mob at Ephesus when a magistrate reminds them
of the consequences of provoking the intervention of the proconsul for their near-riotious
behaviour (Acts 19:35—41).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

714 14¢. SYRIA

numbers together in potentially unruly circumstances,“ and banditry
had to be controlled.

An aspect of the governor’s activities which receives little attention in
the ancient literature is that of relations with the cities. The intervention
in the affairs of Dora (above) and the order to its leading men to hand
over the offenders to a military officer is instructive; more useful is the
series of references in the Tax Law at Palmyra revealing intervention in
the internal economic affairs of that city not just by Germanicus, but by
the governors Corbulo and Mucianus.‘5

Both governor and imperial procurator were resident at Antioch. The
city was no longer a royal capital, but henceforth, because of the status
and wide jurisdiction of the governor, it was effectively capital of the
Asiatic East; in the Greek East as a whole, second only to Alexandria in
size. Appropriately, Tiberius was to emphasize the status of the city by
his contribution of that quintessential symbol of Roman sovereignty, a
statue of the she-wolf and twins atop the new East Gate.“ The city
housed the provincial bureaucracy and at least the governor’s guards.
For much of the year, however, the governor was absent on tour and
some of the paraphernalia of government will have been established in
successive provincial cities.

More than for any other province, it was a major function of the
Syrian governors to deal with and watch over the activities of kings and
princes. The meetings and correspondence Herod had with governors of
Syria cannot have been unusual except perhaps in their frequency.
Relations were not always easy for any governor ... or king. M. Titius
was at odds with Archelaus of Cappadocia until reconciled by Herod,‘
and Vibius Marsus earned the enmity of Herod Agrippa I for his
interferences in that king’s bolder activities.4® The heart of the problem
was, as Tacitus observed in another context,*? that kings do not like to be
treated like other men, and occasionally those in the East forgot the true
nature of their position; conversely, a governor in office for only a few
years at most needed to exercise considerable tact when dealing with men
whose positions were ‘permanent’ and some of whom enjoyed very close
relations with the emperor.

The governor disposed now of a large army. In place of the two legions
of the late Republic and the wildly fluctuating numbers of the civil war

* The only such gatherings in which we know governors interested themselves, are those of the
Jews, but there it is surely no coincidence that time and again they turn up in Jerusalem at the
Passover, when, according to Josephus, huge numbers gathered (he claims 3 million) (Joseph. BJ

11.280; cf. 11.10; AJ XvIt.213, 254, XX.106. 45 Teixidor 1984 (£ 1066) 102-3.
4 Malalas, 235.36; Strong 1937 (E 1063). 47 Joseph. AJ xvt.270.
48 Joseph. AJ xtx.326f, Bf 11.218f, v.152; AJ x1x.3 38-43. 49 Tac. Ann. 11.42.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ESTABLISHMENT 715

period, Augustus allocated Syria four. We may roughly estimate the
auxilia in the early Julio-Claudian period at about 20,000; by the time of
Nero, risen to some 30,000. The armies of the client rulers could reach
perhaps 15—20,000 (cf. below, p. 730; 732).

The Roman forces performed two principal functions: the mainten-
ance of internal security and the confrontation of potential external
threat. The very presence of a powerful army in Syria would have had a
deterrent effect and in practice the Parthians never renewed their
invasions of Syria of 51/50 B.c. and of 40-38. The major external wars
involving the army of Syria were those fought out far away in Armenia
by the generals of Augustus (Tiberius in 20 B.c. and Gaius Caesar in A.D.
2: see above ch. 4) and Nero, but Syrian troops were involved too,
internally, in the Homonadensian War of ¢. 5/3 B.c. and in the
suppression of the Cietae in western Cilicia in A.D. 36 and 52.5 Internal
security was a matter of policing the potentially turbulent city popula-
tions, suppressing banditry and controlling the nomads. The last of these
does not appear as a problem for imperial governors after the interven-
tions of the Arab sheikh Alchaudonius in the civil wars of the late
Republic (see n. 18); most will now have been the direct responsibility of
various allied kings and princes, as was certainly the case with the
Herodian rulers in the Hauran at a later date.51 Most action against
bandits would likewise have been the responsibility of petty rulers;
certainly most of that known to us concerns Judaea. Nevertheless,
imperial troops were also involved in what was probably a common
enough task in any province. The governor Varro himself suppressed
widespread banditry in the Trachonitis ¢. 23 B.c. after Damascus
complained of their depredations,*2 and later imperial troops were
employed ¢. A.D. 6 against the Ituraeans on Mt Lebanon.* Although
Antioch with its large population represented the greatest potential
threat of urban unrest, in practice it was almost always Jerusalem which
called for the involvement of Roman troops, just as it was Judaea as a
whole in which time and again Roman troops intervened to restore
order.54 Imperial forces seldom had to intervene in allied states. In the
early years of his reign, Herod had needed assistance to secure his
kingdom (see n. 21) and troops would certainly have been involved in
the annexation of client states. However, only once do we hear of troops
intervening to coerce an allied ruler.55

% Tac. Ann. v1.41, XIL.55.

5! The evidence, largely epigraphic, is collected and discussed by Sartre 1982 (£ 1056) 121-32,
esp. 122f with texts referring to strategoi Nomadon. 52 Joseph. BJ 1.399. 53 ILS 2683.

4 E.g. Varusin a.p. 6 (Joseph. AJ xvit.25f; BJ 11.1); Petronius in 39/40 (Joseph. AJ xvim.274);
and Quadratus in 52 (Tac. Aan. xt1.54).

55 In 37 Vitellius was ordered by Tiberius to invade the Nabataean kingdom and send its king or

his head to Rome. Tiberius’ death gave him the pretext to halt the attack before it can have got much
beyond the Jordan (Joseph. J xviit.s13f).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

716 14¢. SYRIA

The legions were all in the north; only the occasional intervention in
Judaea brought one south of the river Eleutherus to be stationed in
Jerusalem. At various times, legions are located at Cyrrhus and Rapha-
neaea, and — we can infer or guess — Antioch, Apamea, Chalcis, Samosata
and Zeugma as other bases for long or short periods.* The evidence is
slight but the impression — derived partly from the evidence of their
locations in the later first and in the second centuries — is of already in the
Julio-Claudian period, a gradual movement of the legions eastwards to
the Euphrates. The auxi/ia were more widely scattered. Like the legions,
many seem to have been stationed in or near cities and towns; others
were in strategic locations from the Euphrates bend (Tell el-Hajj) to
Judaea (Masada).5’ Only with prior imperial permission could royal
forces operate outside their own borders. Cavalry and archers are:
prominent amongst the auxiliary units, but it is not till the second
century that a camel corps appears. A further, indirect, element of
security was provided by the three veteran colonies at Berytus, Heliopo-
lis and Ptolemais (cf. below p. 717).

Already in the late Republic, Rome had begun to recruit locally — not
just the auxiliary Ituraean archers employed by Caesar and Antony, but
even into the legions. With a limited pool of Roman citizens in the East
as a whole, inevitably the practice continued under the Principate,
relying on the hellenized population of the cities. Likewise the formation
of locally recruited a/ae and cohortes was soon under way — albeit more
slowly than elsewhere — with units from Cyrrhus, Apamea, Damascus,
Antioch and Ituraea; some were drawn from the native Semitic popula-
tion. The annexation of allied states led to the incorporation of royal
armies from Commagene and Judaea. Although royal armies seem to
have mimicked some at least of the ranks and organization of the Roman
army (below, p. 717 and 732), their continued existence for so long
prevented the direct Romanization of a large part of the military
manpower of Syria, with consequences for the Romanization of parts of
the region. Some of these units were dispatched for service in other
provinces; some remained in Syria. For all the units in garrison in Syria
from the outset local recruitment was probably the commonest method
of replacement for most vacancies.*8

56 The evidence is collected and discussed by Keppie 1986 (p 203).

57 Gracey 1981 (E toro) chs. 1 and 4. In some cases at least, precise locations may have had much
to do with the availability of supplies or the means of bringing in food and equipment for a large
body of men.

58 Positive evidence detailing the origins of legionaries (Forni 1953 (D 188); 1974 (D 189)) and
auxiliaries (Holder 1980 (D 195) 109-39; eSp. 121) serving in Syria, is slight. The supposition above
is based on the likely implications of the known indications of Roman attitudes towards local
recruitment in the region.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ESTABLISHMENT 717

3. Urbanization and urban development

The numbers and locations of the cities of hellenistic Syria are well
known (above, p. 708). Much less can be said of their condition at the
outset of Roman rule. The capital, Antioch, was of course already a
major city by any contemporary standard, embellished over two and a
half centuries by the building activities of successive kings and, under
the last of these, even by a palace and circus donated by a Roman
magistrate, Q. Marcius Rex in 67 B.c.5? Apamaea likewise had benefited
from being the Seleucid military centre. In contrast to the irregular
layout of the Phoenician and Jewish cities, these and the other hellenistic
foundations had been laid out on a regular grid pattern which remained
the basis of planning and development throughout the succeeding
centuries. We may plausibly infer decline in the hellenistic cities during
the final chaotic years of the Seleucid dynasty and the period of
Armenian occupation (83-64 B.c.). The Roman civil wars and Parthian
invasions took their toll: Apamaea, Laodicea, Arados, Tyre, Samosata
and Jerusalem were all besieged at one time or another, and all cities
suffered from the demands of successive dynasts seeking to fill their war
chests. For the cities of Syria as for those of other provinces, Octavian’s
victory would have brought welcome relief.

The early Principate, especially the reign of Augustus, saw extensive
urbanization in Syria, though little of it in the province itself. There were
only three ‘new’ foundations, all of them veteran colonies, and all on the
sites of existing urban settlements. Antony may have established a
colony at Berytus,® but if so Augustus, through the agency of Agrippa
in 15/14 B.c. re-established and expanded it.*' Then, or soon after,
colonists were established at Heliopolis-Baalbek in the Beqaa valley. A
major route opened eastwards over the mountains and this solid block of
veterans of V Macedonica and VIII Augusta would have exerted a
pacifying influence over the central region of the difficult Ituraean
territory. More to the point, as a major ‘Roman’ city, strategically and
attractively sited, Berytus rapidly became a mustering point for troops,

59 Malalas, 225.7~11; cf. Humphrey 1986 (F 427) 456f.

60 The Antonian origin may be inferred from a Berytan coin, undated but issued under
Commodus (BMCPhoenicia 68f nos. 113-18), bearing the legend sec(undo) Saec(ulo) col(oniae)
Ber(ytensis). An Augustan saeculum of 110 years points to a date between 41 and 29 B.c. However,
Commodus’ ‘grandfather’ Antoninus Pius had celebrated the Roman /udi saeculares on the traditional
calculation of a saeculum of 100 years which, if adopted by Commodus, would point rather to 21-9
B.C., i.¢. perhaps to the induction of Agrippa. Lauffray 1978 (E 1033) 147 notes even Caesar as a
possible original founder. 61 Strabo xvi (756c).

62 The date of foundation of Heliopolis remains unresolved. Extreme views see it as the work
either of Augustus contemporary with Berytus or as dependent on the latter until given independent
status by Septimius Severus (preferred most recently by Millar 1990 (E 1040) 18f). The recently
proposed case (Rey-Coquais 1978 (E 1054) 52f) for independence coming rather under Claudius is
attractive.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

718 14¢. SYRIA

an assize-centre, and a resort for visitors and client princes. Ptolemais,
the former Akko, probably founded between a.p. 51 and 54, but
developed under Nero was also a veteran settlement,® located so as to
stabilize the increasingly restless areas of northern Judaea in the late
Julio-Claudian period.

The peaceful conditions which allowed the recovery of the cities, were
augmented by active imperial interest in urban development. Antioch
had attention lavished on it from the outset. After the palace and circus
attributed to Q. Marcius Rex in 67 B.c. (above, p. 717), Caesar, twenty
years later, donated a Caesareum and amphitheatre, built or rebuilt a
Pantheon and a theatre, and constructed an aqueduct. ‘Augustus,
Agrippa, Herod and Tiberius were the great benefactors, adding a new
quarter, baths, temples, a theatre and a great colonnaded street, and
Gaius and Claudius were active in restoration after earthquakes.
Between them these men transformed much of the city, making it a
worthy metropolis of the province. In doing so, all of them were
conforming to an established tradition of aristocratic benefaction to
cities; with Antioch, however, one sees, par excellence, the convergence of
the more lavish expectations of the capital city of the Asiatic East and the
enormous resources for such gifts available to the Roman emperors.®

Outside Antioch we have no explicit evidence of direct imperial civic
building even if one may suppose such involvement in the new colonies
at least. From literature, however, we do know of major public works
elsewhere in Syria. Exedras, porticoes, temples, an agora, theatre,
amphitheatre and baths were constructed at Berytus, all of this the work
of Herod and his descendants, Agrippa I and II. The same Herodian
rulers embellished several other Syrian cities: Laodicea, Tripolis, Byb-
lus, Tyre, Sidon, Ptolemais, Ascalon, Damascus and, of course, Antioch
(cf. below p. 725).65 The appearance of these structures is largely
unknown — only at Antioch and Berytus is there some physical
evidence® - but we may turn for information to those of Herod’s new
works within his own kingdom, which have been investigated. The
most interesting feature of Herod’s work is his rapid employment of new
Roman techniques and materials, here appearing rapidly and with more
impact than in Greece or Asia Minor. Thus we find the extensive use of

63 Foundation by Claudius is explicitly attested by Pliny (HN v.17.75) and that testimony and the
likely date of between 52/3 and 54 proposed by Seyrig 1962 (B 350) 44f and now modified by Millar
1990 (E 1040) 24 n. 76, are to be preferred to the arguments of Kadman 1961 (B 329) 23 in favour ofa
Neronian foundation in Claudius’ name. That it was a proper veteran colony is likely (Mann 1983 (D
215) 41); contra, Rey-Coquais 1978 (E 1054) 5 2f (cf. PECS s.v. ‘Ptolemais’) who regards it as a colony
in name only on the basis of D 50.15.1.3.

“ See now the important discussion of the ramifications of imperial building in Greece and Asia
Minor by Mitchell 1987 (F 503). 65 Joseph. BJ 1.422—-5; AJ xv1.148, xx. 335 ff.

6 Antioch: Lassus 1972 (E 1032) 72; Berytus: Lauffray 1978 (E 1033) 148 and 157.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ESTABLISHMENT 719

concrete and vaulting to permit elaborate engineering and landscaping
works.§7 ,

The most extensive urbanization of the early Principate did not in fact
take place in the province at all. The monarchs of the Herodian dynasty
were all great founders of cities, several of which became major centres
In due course, all of these were to become part of the provinces of Syria,
Judaea or Arabia. Their importance for their founders, as for the
Romans in turn, was in the creation of largely hellenized communities
with a cultural, administrative and military role to play. Thus, Herod’s
highly hellenized city of Caesarea was not only firmly pro-Roman in the
time of Jewish revolts (and rewarded with colonial status by Vespasian)
but became the provincial capital of Judaea, a role which, together with
the substantial military forces there, would have given it a more
distinctly Greco-Roman character. Herod’s cities thus began the process
of replacing the old toparchies into which the four major regions of his
kingdom had been divided for administrative purposes. The urbaniza-
tion of the Ituraean lands, involved a mixture of procedures. In the
north, much of the territory was allocated to the veteran colonies of
Berytus and Heliopolis, the rest attributed to Arca/Caesarea ad Liba-
num. In the south, territories were transferred to Herod and his
descendants who introduced military colonies and cities in the western
region, and were probably behind the process elsewhere which was to
lead to the appearance in the second century of large villages with
extensive administrative functions.

One of the most interesting developments of the period concerns
Palmyra and is clearly associated with Germanicus’ visit to Syria —
perhaps even to the remote town itself. There is a complete silence in the
literary and epigraphic sources about Palmyra between Antony’s abor-
tive raid in 41 B.c. and the beginning of Tiberius’ reign, when suddenly
we get a spate of information.” Prior to this, the town — probably

67 Thus, at Caesarea in the construction of the great artificial harbour and of the temple of Roma
and Augustus on the neighbouring high ground; in the palace of Herodium; and of course the great
‘landscaped villa in the contemporary Italian manner’ at Jericho (Ward-Perkins 1981 (F 615) 312).
Other client states too may have been active in promoting urban development in the cities of the
province; without the testimony of Josephus our impression of Herod the Great’s work would be
very different. Recent fieldwork at Samosata has revealed that the kings of Commagene employed
opus reticulatum extensively both in buildings on the citadel (the palace?) and in the facing for the
lengthy town walls (Tirpan 1989 (£ 1067)). 68 Jones 1931 (E 1018) 81-5.

® Discussion by Jones 1931 (EB 1019) has not been superseded.

70 ¢. A.D. 11-17 we find the governor Silanus active defining the western border of its territory
with either Apameia or Emesa (Schlumberger 1939 (E 1058)); the earliest Latin inscriptions — statue
dedications to Tiberius, Drusus and Germanicus by the commander of one of the Syrian legions —
appear in 17 (AE 1933, 204), the earliest bilingual Palmyrene—Latin texts, soon after; the first usage
in Greek of the name Palmyra appears ¢.17 19; bronze coins of Tiberius were countermarked witha
Palmyrene ‘T’ and Greek ‘fT’ (Howgego 198; (B 325) nos. 683, 694); Germanicus is cited in the city’s
Tax Law as active in regulating internal tariffs; and he is named too on an inscription as instrumental
in sending a Palmyrene, Alexandros, as an envoy to the Mesene at the head of the Persian Gulf
(Cantineau 1931 (£ 993) 139-41).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

720 14¢. SYRIA

originally located mainly south of the wadi and just to its north”! — began
to develop on the north bank. The temple of Allat seems to have been
taking shape at the end of the first century B.c., and that of Baalshamin
was dedicated a.p. 11-23. The major development, however, was the
dedication in 32 of the immense temple of Bel which dominated the city.
It has so much influence in its decoration which is classical and was
completed so rapidly that it is probable that it was financed by the Roman
emperor and worked on by many craftsmen imported from the cities to
the west.” As was probably the case with the temples of Allat and
Baalshamin, most construction work would have been locally financed;
this can be seen explicitly in the case of the temple of Zeus at Gerasa, paid
for by private pledges.73

The commonest structures in the cities at all times were the houses of
their inhabitants. Very little is known of town houses at any time; they
are almost entirely unknown for this period, though the evidence from
Hama would suggest that the forms of earlier periods continued to be
influential for years to come.”4 Josephus provides us with an illuminat-
ing observation which sheds light on the appearance of the cities and
towns of southern Syria. In the course of Cestius Gallus’ invasion of
Galilee in a.p. 66, he destroyed the large village of Chabulon but
reluctantly because of the beauty of its houses, “built in the style of those
of Tyre, Sidon and Berytus’.’5 Earlier, Strabo had observed that the
houses of Tyre (many of them on the ‘island’) were many stories high,
higher even than those of Rome. On the other hand, the dye works at
Tyre and some of its neighbours produced a distinctive and unpleasant
smell.76

The governments of the cities were predominantly hellenistic in
character, with a boule, archons, agoranomot, argyrotamiai, dekaprotoi and
gymnasiarchs. Colonies of course adopted Roman practice and we have
references to the decurions and to dwoviri, aediles and quaestors. At
Palmyra, many of the magistrates bear traditional titles but, as noted
earlier (above, p. 712), ithas been suggested that the functions of these
men were different and that Palmyra was in fact very closely supervised
by Rome, the activities of its magistrates largely directed by the Syrian
governor.”

The century of Roman peace which followed Actium saw, if not
extensive urbanization in Syria, at least major urban development. The
new colonies and the major Herodian foundations would have made a
significant impact locally at least, Berytus, Ptolemais and Caesarea all

71 Van Berchem 1976 (E 987) 170.

72 Lyttleton 1974 (F 476) 93-6, 183-5; Colledge 1976 (E 994).

73 Welles in Kraeling 1938 (£ 1031) 373-8. nos. 2-7. % Ploug 1985 (E 1051) passim.
75 BY 11.504. % Strab. xvi.2.23 (757€)- 77 Teixidor 1984 (E 1066) 63.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ESTABLISHMENT 721

rapidly developing as major cities. Elsewhere, by the end of the Julio-
Claudian dynasty, many of the major cities of the province displayed the
physical benefits of Roman benefactions whether directly from the
emperor or through surrogates.

4. Economic development

The basis of the Syrian economy was farming. Not just agriculture to
produce the fundamental corn harvest, but the cultivation of olives,
vines, dates and figs, and the rearing of animals for food, wool and hides
(as well as the tools and ornaments which were made from bones).
Within the largely unchanging limitations imposed by rainfall and soils
(above, p. 705~8), altered circumstances could provide scope for
increased activity in marginal areas and for a changed balance between
different crops as well as between tillage and stock raising. Little of such
change can be demonstrated, though much may be inferred.

Security and stable conditions provided a suitable environment for
the development of farming. Moreover, ‘new’-cities and urban growth
opened up new or extended markets for agricultural surplus, to which
had to be added the tens of thousands of unproductive soldiers who had
to be fed. The probable extension of agriculture which resulted would in
itself, by encouraging the settlement of potentially productive land, have
further stimulated the economy and enhanced stability.78

There were, of course, some traditional agricultural regions which
continued to produce surpluses. The inhabitants of Sidon and Tyre, for
example, were dependent on Galilee, and it may have been from this
same region that much of the non-‘Grecian’ oil required by the Jewish
communities of all of Syria, was exported.”? The movement of corn by
land would at all times have been expensive except in very local terms.
Herod, however, had imported huge amounts of corn from Egypt at the
time of the famine in the 20s, supplying too, some of neighbouring
Syria.80

New lands were opened up to agriculture. Thus Herod obliged the
bandits of Trachonitis to turn to farming,®! and the growth of the
Nabataean towns of the Negev must be associated with the development
of the water-harvesting structures and ‘farms’ still visible in the region.®?

78 The process can be documented for the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Well-armed
soldiers in the towns and along roads, and at selected points in the semi-desert and desert,
encouraged resettlement of abandoned land, turned semi-nomads into farmers, encouraged the
growth of investment by the urban merchants and the Sultan, and provided not only new markets in
towns and garrisons for food and hides, but even, during the Crimean War and the loss of Black Sea
sources, a vigorous export market to Europe for Syrian grain (Lewis 1987 (E 1034)).

7 Joseph. Vit. txx; BJ 11.591, AJ xit.120. Cf. above, p. 720. 8 Joseph. AJ xv.299-302.

51 Joseph. AJ xvi.271~-92; cf. Archelaus’ irrigation of new land near Jericho: BJ xv11.340; cf. BJ
xvur.31; Pliny, HN xt11.44. ® Evenari ef a/. 1982 (E 1008) chs. VII-IX; cf. below, p. 732f.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

722 14¢. SYRIA

In the late Republic, the great caravan trade up the Euphrates had
been virtually halted by the predatory activities of Arab phylarchs. Peace
and the probable settlement of semi-nomads of the region along the river
and towards Beroea re-opened the routes,®3 and not only the growing
populations in Syria itself, but access to a huge Mediterranean market
stimulated activity. Aelius Gallus’ expedition into south Arabia in 26/5
B.C. was certainly motivated by cupidity. Likewise, imperial interest in
trade is probably behind the sudden concern for Palmyra (above, p. 714).
On the other hand, the southern routes through Arabia Petraea, already
in decline (below, p. 734), suffered a further blow as trade routes were
polarized between those direct to Egypt and those from the head of the
Persian Gulf.

Evidence from the Julio-Claudian period reveals a network of trading
links within and beyond the province; more can be inferred. Thus timber
from Lebanon for the sanctuary at Jerusalem,® metals for both work-
shops and mints,®5 Italian pottery appears on Syrian sites, following
presumably the same routes as Italian wine and oil; Syrian glass is found
as distant as south Russia,® South Arabia and India, and Syrian wine was
exported to India.8’ The needs of the army too would have stimulated
trade within and between provinces: metals, hides, clothing, building
materials and, of course, huge quantities of food. Further stimulus
would have come from the market created in Antioch by a bureaucracy,
those around the army camps with their bodies of regularly paid soldiers
and, of course, from the demands of the labour forces on the new
building projects. The most striking economic activity in the period —
the one, certainly, for which we have some useful evidence — is in public
construction. Whatever the source of the finance, this provided long-
term employment opportunities: in the case of a massive structure like
the temple of Jupiter at Damascus, such construction work was still
highly labour intensive; 18,000 were threatened by unemployment when
the Temple was completed in Jerusalem.8

None of this should be exaggerated. There is little doubt that trade in
food and other commodities increased and created a greater interdepen-
dence between communities in Syria and beyond. The underlying
reality, however, is that most economic activity remained local and of a
subsistence character, and the overwhelming majority of the population

8 Strab. xvi.1.27f (748cf); 2.10 (752—-3¢); cf. Lewis 1987 (£ 1034).

% Joseph. BJ v.36. These huge timbers for a specialist purpose would have been only one
amongst many such items imported for the great building programmes of the client kings and the
Pe Copper from the mines of Cyprus and, perhaps, the Wadi Araba; cf. in general Muhly 1973 (£
1044). 8 Rostovtzeff 1957 (A 83) 69f.

87 Raschke 1978 (c 298) 903f, n. 999; Sidebotham 1986 (c 310) 13~47. Some at least of the silk
appearing in Rome in the period may have come through Syria (but cf. Miller 1969 (E 1042) t19f;
133-6). 8 Joseph. AJ xx.219.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ESTABLISHMENT 723

continued to live and work on the land.89 Nor need we doubt that for
most small farmers, ‘pre-harvest famine’ remained a continuing feature
of life unchanged — and unchangeable — by Roman rule.”

An important basis for this revived and developing economic life after
30 B.c., was the Augustan stabilization of the imperial coinage and the
regularization of minting at Antioch. There were, however problems
and setbacks. The population of the region would plainly not have
suffered uniformly under a non-progressive tax regime. Indeed, in a.p.
17 Tacitus®! reports the financial exhaustion of the province from over-
taxation; one of the reasons for the dispatch of Germanicus in that year.
Just who was complaining — and how it was articulated — we are not told.

Natural disasters took their toll, though the extraordinary could
expect imperial relief. A great famine and plague struck Judaea in the
mid-zos B.c. and afflicted neighbouring regions. Another famine,
portrayed by Luke as universal, is reported in ¢. A.D. 47/8.% An
earthquake had struck Judaea in 30 B.c., a second in A.D. 37, and others in
north and south respectively, in the period a.pD. 41~54 and 48.

5. Society and culture

As part of the Mediterranean-wide Roman empire, the urban population
of the great cities of northern Syria and the Levant became still more
cosmopolitan both in racial mix and outlook than in the Seleucid period.
Despite the considerable body of evidence for the very active involve-
ment of Syrians in overseas trade, there is virtually none showing any
interest by the aristocracy to enter imperial service. In contrast to Asia
Minor, there is no certain senator before the Flavian period,® and the
two, possibly three, ‘Syrians’ who appear as equestrian officers in the
Julio-Claudian period are all probably from the veteran colonies of
Berytus and Heliopolis.“ Only a handful of the aristocracies of the cities
appear prominently. Malalas reports on the wealthy Antiochene council-
lor, Sosibius, who accompanied Augustus to Rome in either 30 or 20
B.c., and left his wealth to the city for entertainments;® and now we have

89 The only city for which we get anything approaching an insight into its internal economy at
this period, is Palmyra through the Hadrianic Tax Law, elements of which are derived froma Julio-
Claudian ‘Old Law’. There one finds references to the importation of a wide range of produce from
the Palmyrene territory, and extensive services in the city ranging from the selling of clothes to
prostitution (Teixidor 1984 (E 1066) 69-90; Matthews 1984 (E 1037)).

% Clark and Haswell 1970 (a 17) 19. % Ann. 11.42.

% Gapp 1935 (c 349); cf. Gapp, 1934 (a 32) chs II and III, Garnsey 1988 (a 33).

%3 Bowersock 1982 (p 25) 652f.

% The best known of these, Q. Aemilius Secundus, who commanded regiments in Syria,
campaigned against the Ituraeans, and conducted the famous census at Apameia for Quirinius in
A.D. 6, is probably but not certainly from Berytus (Devijver 1986 (D 179) 183-9).

% Malalas, Chron. 1x.20 (224).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

724 14¢. SYRIA

the inscription reporting on the quondam tetrarch Dexandros, who
remained at Apamea as the founder of one of the leading families, and
served as first High Priest of the Imperial Cult for the province (below,
P- 727).

An obstacle to assimilation of the city aristocracies of Syria outside the
veteran colonies — as elsewhere in the Greek East — was of course the
slowness with which Roman citizenship was extended in the province.
The aristocracies of ancient and great cities such as Antioch, Apamea and
Damascus would see little advantage in it for them. Significantly, it was
from the descendants of now deposed allied rulers— who had often been
granted Roman citizenship and had more direct contact with Rome and
Romans — that many of the earliest Syrian senatorial families were
drawn.

Roman citizenship was spreading. Many time-expired legionaries as
well as enfranchised former auxiliaries stayed on as settlers, some in the
new colonies. One might expect those cities closely associated with the
military — especially the legions — to have had larger numbers of Roman
citizens. That would be particularly true of Antioch, both as a military
centre and seat of the provincial bureaucracy. Presumably too the
Apostle Paul was not the only Roman citizen amongst the petty officials
of Syria. Instructive of the process in the Syrian cities is an inscription of
60 from Tyre of C. Iulius Iucundus, agoranomos in charge of nominations
for Roman citizenship, suggesting that at Tyre at least, such an office was
necessary. Whatever the ethnic origin of Iucundus, his colleague, the
agoranomos Nicolaus, son of Baledo, clearly a native, a Phoenician who
has adopted a Greek name,% exemplifies an older and probably more
widespread process at work in varying degrees across the province. An
interesting exception is Dexandros (above, p. 727), whose rare Greek
name may reflect a genuine ‘Greek’ background.”

With native Semites appearing amongst the aristocracy of the cities, it
seems certain that most of the remainder of the population, whatever
their names, were likewise part or wholly Semitic. The Jewish commun-
ity in most cities was especially noticeable; some such communities were
substantial — that at Antioch had its own politeuma and was allowed its
own archon. Conversely, Gentile ‘Syrians’ in large numbers had been
implanted by the Herods in their new cities.

The influx of people from outside Syria would have been principally
through the army. While the numbers are potentially large, in practice
many soldiers, even in the legions, will have been recruited locally
(above, p. 716). Outside recruitment to the legions seems to have drawn

% Mouterde 1944-6 (E 1043). Cf. Aristomachus, son of Zabdion at Gerasa (Kraeling 1938 (E

1031) 373f no. z). 9% Rey-Coquais 1973 (B 269) 51.
% Kraeling 1932 (E 1030); Meeks and Wilken, 1978 (F 185) 2-13. Joseph. Aj xvit.23—-7.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ESTABLISHMENT 725

on the neighbouring provinces rather than the West, and outsiders were
rapidly assimilated, through contact and intermarriage, to the local
communities. An unexpected element is the Parthian, Arsacid refugees
and their retainers who were settled in Syria; and the Babylonian Jew
Zamaris with his family and 500 archers who arrived ¢ 9-6 B.c. to be
initially settled at Daphne, is unlikely to have been unique if one may
judge from the evidence of ‘Parthian’ regiments and mercenaries in the
Roman army.”

Evidence for romanization — as opposed to the greater scope for
hellenization — is limited and largely superficial: Italian names (not least
‘Agrippa’), some citizenship, mainly in pockets, the local cultural
influence of the three veteran colonies and the influence of the imperial
cult in cities and around the camps. The army was indeed the principal
source of Romanization through the imposition of an influential Roman
institution with established and thoroughly Roman practices in admi-
nistration, language and religion. But the 40-50,000 soldiers were
scattered and increasingly locally recruited even in the Julio-Claudian
period. Those in cities, like the Thracians of the a/a I Augusta Thracum at
Gerasa in the first century,!© were more likely to be influenced by Syrian
culture than the reverse. Conversely, Roman military practices made an
impact on the armies of the allied rulers. Not surprisingly they sought to
emulate the most efficient and effective army of the time (cf. below,
P- 732).108

Opportunities for refined entertainment and relaxation were extended
beyond that handful of cities in the north which had theatres in the
hellenistic period. Theatres remained less common than in Asia Minor,
but Herod and his family were responsible for their construction and for
the provision of baths and gymnasia in several cities in their own realms
and in the Syrian province. The notion that the Greek East had no taste
for the barbarism of the Roman wild beast and gladiatorial fights must
now be jettisoned. Although the positive evidence is slight and amphi-
theatres are uncommon, literature attests to both practices — at the time
of Herod’s dedication of his new city of Caesarea in 10 B.c. and by Titus
after the destruction of Jerusalem 80 years later. It is clear that theatres
were used instead of purpose-built amphitheatres.'°2 Athletic and
dramatic contests, often associated with religious festivals, were revived

% Applebaum 1989 (£ 1075) ch. 4; Kennedy 1977 (E 1021).

100 Kraeling 1938 (£ 1031) 446f nos. 199-201.

101 Cf. Braund 1984 (c 254); Gracey 1981 (E 1010). When Josephus set about organizing an army
in 67, he adopted Roman practices and ranks (BJ 11.577-82).

102 Robert 1940 (F 57) 239-66. At Antioch, gladiatorial games went back to Antiochus IV
Epiphanes who had developed his taste for them while at Rome: Livy, xtt.20. The amphitheatre
discovered by aerial reconnaissance at Caesarea has received only a little attention but is presumably
that of Herod (Holum ef a/. 1989 (E 1140) 85-6).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

726 14¢. SYRIA

or established in various cities providing periodic attractions and
entertainment: the councillor Sosibius (above, p. 723) established a
quinquennial festival at Antioch extending over thirty days,'° and
Herod introduced them too into the cities of his realm, including
Jerusalem.'!

Religion played a large part in both politics and everyday life. Most
detailed evidence belongs to a later period but the principal features for
the current century are clear. Semitic religions had much in common
with one another as indeed with those of their Mesopotamian neigh-
bours with whom they had a shared cultural and political unity
extending back to Persian times. A common feature was a Supreme God.
By the Persian period the host of minor gods which had obscured the
prominence of the supreme deity had moved into a more subordinate
role. The ‘Assemblies of Gods’ which had characterized this earlier
phase gave way to Angels, messengers of the Supreme God, who might
have their own devotees. A consequence was a trend towards monoth-
eism which facilitated the spread of Judaism and was to do so again for
Christianity.

The character no less than the name of the Supreme God varied
considerably between settled peoples and nomads, townsmen and
farmers. The preoccupations of the citizens of Phoenician Tyre were far
removed from those of the merchants of Palmyra or the nomads of
Nabataea. Naturally, for most people, the fertility of the soil and the
needs of agriculture were dominant; industry, trade, commerce or a
nomadic life involved different priorities. Thus, Baalshamin, identified
as a deity concerned with agriculture was popular around the Palmyrene
oasis, and the Nabataean Supreme God, Dushara, perhaps equated with
Mercury by the nomadic Nabataeans of the south, was assimilated to
Dionysus amongst the farmers of the Hauran.

There is also a distinction to be made between the public religion of
the towns and the popular religion of the masses. For the latter, their
religion was probably very simple and their relationship with their god
close: inscriptions often characterize traditional pagan gods as epekoos
‘the One Who Listens’, symbolizing the expectation amongst devotees
that they would be listened to and taken care of. For the more
sophisticated townsman, Semitic cults such as those of Azizos, Hadad,
Melkart, Atargatis and Baalshamin, had come to be equated with Greek
gods during the hellenistic period. The trend continued in the Roman
period with shrines and dedications flourishing in the cities to gods from
Apollo and Athene to Panand Zeus, either in their own right or in a dual
form with the local Supreme God. The Roman equivalents made little

103 Malalas, Chron. 1x.224; x.248; XII.284.
104 Joseph. Aj xv1.137; BJ 1.415 (Caesarea); AJ xv.268 (Jerusalem).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ESTABLISHMENT 727

impact outside the army camps and colonies. For the latter, the cult of
Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus at Heliopolis-Baalbek, repre-
sents the most striking example. For the former, the official Roman cults
which formed part of formal military festivals and worship were still
vibrant in the early third century as the Feriale Duranum, the Dura
Military Calendar, makes clear.!05

The most significant Roman import was the introduction of the
imperial cult in the time of Augustus (above, p. 724). Temples and
priesthoods for Augustus, or Rome and Augustus, were established
during his lifetime, as they were for his successors and for the divs.
Significantly, the first High Priest of the imperial cult for the province as
a whole was the Apamaean tetrarch Dexandros, a man who would have
understood better than most the importance of the cult, and provided a
striking model for others to emulate. Once again, Herod was at the
forefront of this development with known temples built at Samaria and
Panias and, in particular, at Caesarea Maritima.'% Indeed, it has been
plausibly suggested that wherever else temples of the imperial cult were
established, they were an inevitable feature of those cities named for and
dedicated to Caesar or Augustus/Sebastos. Of interest too in the realm of
politics, was the establishment under imperial patronage, of the great
temple of Jupiter at Baalbek, which became a focus of political loyalty
for central Syria at least, as that at Seeia may have been for the Nabataean
population of the Hauran.

The prominence of religion in everyday life is clear enough from the
numerous temples and shrines, the altars and baefy/s (rectangular stone
pillars), theophoric elements in personal names and the inscriptions
attesting to the gratitude of the common man for divine protection and
aid. For many it would have provided a vital reassurance.!° Influence is
harder to gauge. At one extreme, the political role of the imperial cult,
the newest cult in the region, is clear enough. At the other, Judaism, one
of the oldest, through the Jewish diaspora of Syria and new converts,
exerted a humanitarian influence on its neighbours, since it, uniquely,
had a tradition of compassion for the destitute. !9%

A handful of Syrians are prominent in the field of scholarship. The
numbers of philosophers, rhetoricians and orators is small by compari-
son with, for example, Alexandrians. Nicolaus of Damascus, the
minister and historian of Herod the Great, is to be ranked alongside
Strabo, Timagenes and Dionysius amongst the outstanding Greek
writers of the Augustan period. Other notable figures are Tiberius’

105 PDura $4.
106 Holum ef al. 1989 (£ 1140) 88f; cf. 110f for an inscription of Pontius Pilate recording a
Tiberieum. 107 Sourdel 1952 (E 1061); Teixidor 1977 (F 227); 1979 (E 1065).

108 Hands 1968 (F 39) 77-88. See e.g. Joseph. Aj xx.219; Acts 11.27-301.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

728 14¢. SYRIA

tutor, the rhetorician Theodorus of Gadara, and his fellow-townsman,
the epicurean philosopher Philodemus, teacher of Calpurnius Piso and
Virgil; from Tarsus and Cilician Seleucia, respectively, came Nestor and
Athenaeus, tutors of Marcellus.!°° However, while these Syrians
appeared in the imperial household, no Antiochene — in the absence of a
precise role for Sosibius (above, p. 723) — is known to have held a
position of prominence there in the way Alexandrians did, and neither
the city nor the province held the attraction for eminent Roman
hellenophiles which Greece, Asia Minor and Egypt did.!!0

III. CLIENT STATES

1. Character, role and development

Pompey’s settlement of Syria had involved the recognition of a number
of men as rulers over much of the region. Although they subsequently
appeared prominently in support of the vanquished in three successive
rounds of Roman civil war, they were still numerous in 30 B.c. Indeed,
numbers may have increased: Antony had swept away the many tyrants
set up by Cassius!!! to rule over newly created principalities, but then
established other such states himself.!!2 However, it is only in the 20s B.c.
that we get an indication of just how numerous these states were.
Alongside the kingdoms - Commagene, Judaea and Arabia Petraea,
there were numerous minor dynasts and tetrarchs: more than a score in
Syria Coele, and several more in the south.!3

The usefulness of a network of allied rulers in and around the
periphery of a province was not in doubt.!!4 Rather, the task confronting
the new princeps was to re-assess the balance between directly adminis-
tered province and the area under the control of allied rulers, and to
determine which to retain. The solution was to have fewer but larger
states. The three major kingdoms were retained and two were resusci-
tated: the kings of eastern Cilicia and Emesa had been victims of the
Actian campaign, but their families were now restored in 20 B.c. The
year, of course, was that of Augustus’ visit to Syria and it seems likely
that the rest of the major re-organization attributable to his reign was
also the outcome of this visit and/or of those of Agrippa in 23/1 and 16~
13 B.c. during his period of authority in the East (23-13 B.c.). The
arrangements cannot be followed in derail but they involved the removal

109 Bowersock 1965 (c 39) ch. III. We might note too, apparently from Syrian Hierapolis, a great
local benefactor at Athens, Julius Nicanor, hailed as the New Themistocles and New Homer (Jones
1978 (E 1020)). 10 Bowersock 1965 (C 39) 73-84. M1 Joseph. BJ 1.239; AJ xrv.297.

"2 App. BC#y. v.10; Dio xi1x.32.4f. 113 Pliny, HN v.81f; 74.

14 Caesar had recognized petty rulers on condition they defended the province (BA/r. 65.4).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CLIENT STATES 729

of the plethora of tetrarchs. The case of Zenodorus indicates that their
lands could simply be re-allocated: in 24/3 he had lost part of his Ituraean
tetrarchy to Herod the Great, then in 20, after his death, Herod received
the rest too.!45 On the other hand, the ending of the Apamaean
tetrarchy!!® seems to have been purely administrative: the territory was
annexed to the province, and the family of Dexandros with their ‘royal
honours’ remained dominant in the local aristocracy for at least a century
more. Other tetrarchies may have been subsumed in the restored
kingdoms of Cilicia and Emesa (from which indeed they may have
sprung). Important lacunae concern the nomad tribes and Palmyra: in
particular, the Arab phylarchs in the north in the late Republic are heard
of no more, and after Antony’s raid in 41 B.c., Palmyra does not reappear
in our evidence until ¢. A.D. 11-17 (above, p. 719f and n. 70).

The terms of Roman friendship, alliance and recognition for kings
and princes — whether officially stated or not — varied considerably.
There had always been limitations on the freedom of action of such
rulers, but the defining of parameters was one of the achievements of
Augustus’ reign. The character of a ruler and the location and size of his
kingdom all went to determine the extent of his freedom of action and
behaviour. Inevitably it is from Josephus’ account of Herod and his
descendants that we learn most about the rulers of Syria, but from what
may be gleaned both from the same author and other writers, it is clear
that the same parameters of rights, obligations and behaviour applied.
Equally inevitably, some rulers either did not recognize these or sought
to break them.

Location of course was important. Commagene’s capital, 26okm from
Antioch as the crow flies, would have given its ruler a measure of
remoteness until the annexation of Cappadocia in a.p. 17 brought
another province into existence in the north. The nearest Roman troops
would have been about four days distant. Its dynasty felt akin to Parthia
and just beyond their Euphrates border lay a dangerous example:
Osrhoene, a powerful Parthian vassal, whose kings had been able to
shake off Roman overlordship after the Battle of Carrhae. Rome was
often uneasy about Commagene’s reliability. It had colluded with the
Parthian invasion of 40-38 B.c. which had led to Antony’s abortive
siege; strategic considerations almost certainly lay behind the decision in
A.D, 17 to take direct control of the major crossings of the upper
Euphrates by annexing Cappadocia and Commagene; and its final

1S Joseph. AJ xv.344-9, 359-63, xv1.271; BJ 398-400.

116 AE 1976, 677-8; Rey-Coquais 1973 (B 269). The Roman census at Apameia in a.D. 6 suggests
the tetrarchy had ended by that time (ILS 2673) — perhaps precisely at that time. The sole auxiliary
regiment named for Apameia, the cobors | Apamenorum, lacks an imperial title, which may point to
formation before Claudius — again perhaps the result of taking over the tetrarchic army.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

730 14¢. SYRIA

elimination in 72 was precisely on the grounds of alleged conspiracy with
Parthia.1!7

Tarcondimotus’ Cilician kingdom, though divided from the rest of
Syria by the Amanus Mountains was hemmed in by the Taurus and the
province of Cilicia and easily open to Roman influence and intervention.
Emesa was close to the heart of the province.!!8 Under Claudius, when
the governor Vibius Marsus appeared at Tiberias and ordered the
dispersal of Herod Agrippa I’s guests including the kings of Comma-
gene and Emesa, both complied rapidly, recognizing the nature of their
position even if their host had believed Claudius’ friendship and
indebtedness had accorded him greater latitude.

Arabia Petraea is rather different. Unlike Commagene, there was no
powerful neighbour beyond; on the other hand, the remoteness of Petra
—some 7ookm from Antioch, hedged in by mountain and desert — with
consequent difficulties either of controlling or bringing the region under
direct administration, conferred a certain amount of immunity from day-
to-day interference. But there were limits and warnings. Aretas IV had
acceded without prior approval in 9 B.c., and in A.D. 37 made war on his
neighbour Herod Antipas. Augustus had considered deposing the
dynasty but was too preoccupied to pursue a radical solution; Tiberius
actually despatched an army into Nabataean territory but Vitellius seized
the pretext of Tiberius’ death to withdraw his forces from Nabataea.
Luck had saved Aretas on both occasions but the lessons would not have
been lost: in 4 B.c. Nabataean troops were sent to aid Varus in his
Judaean expedition! and in a.p. 18 Germanicus was féted by Aretas.!20
Moreover, with the growth of Nabataean possessions in the Hauran, the
kingdom was now rather more vulnerable.

The function of these client kings is largely a matter for conjecture
from the totality of evidence for client rulers everywhere and in
particular from the well-attested Herodian examples. The advantages to
Rome of leaving the less urbanized and poorer parts of Syria under their
traditional rulers, was obvious. Except in the cases of the Herods and the
Nabataeans (below, p. 732) we are largely ignorant of the character of the
individual royal armies. Both Commagene and Emesa contributed
significant forces to Roman expeditionary armies: in 66 that was 5,000
and 4,000 troops respectively;!2! in 67 it amounted to 3,000 men from
each, both offering especially useful archers and cavalry.!22 Moreover,
the annexation of Commagene between A.p. 17 and 38 had resulted in the

"17 Joseph. BJ vit.219-22; cf. Kennedy 1983 (£ 1023).

18 By the end of Nero’s reign at least, an entire legion was based only 45km away at Raphanaea
(Joseph. BJ vit.18). 119° Joseph. AJ xvi1.287; BJ 11.68; cf. below, n. 135.

120 Tac. Ann. 11.57. 121 Joseph. Bj 11. s00f. 12 Joseph. BJ. 111.68; Tac. Hist. v.1.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CLIENT STATES 731

absorption of some at least of the former royal army into the Roman
auxilia.'3 Presumably, like the Herodian realms and Arabia Petraea,
these substantial forces reflected not just the needs of personal security
for the monarch, but troops to maintain order in the cities and to police
the countryside as well as to secure the periphery of the directly
administered province (cf. above, n. 114).

The king-lists provide a bare indication of politics and government.
Interruptions at Commagene from 17 to 38 and again under Gaius, did
not, however, prevent the family remaining deeply involved in Roman
politics. Antiochus IV was one of the ‘tyrant-masters’ of Gaius and with
him in Gaul in 39. A generation later, his son, Antiochus Epiphanes,
fought with the Othonians at the First Battle of Bedriacum before
joining Titus at Jerusalem. Interestingly, when Antiochus III died in
A.D. 17 and the kingdom was annexed, it appears that the masses
supported the continued monarchy and it was the aristocracy which
petitioned for annexation.!24 Presumably the aristocracy saw political
advantage to themselves if removed from the shadow of a monarch;
indeed after final annexation, the ruling family was catapulted into
senatorial politics. The ‘masses’ were largely Semitic and it is interesting
to see their support for a ruling family which, as we know from its
nomenclature and the character of the art preserved in the best-known
monument, the great tumulus at Nemrud Dagh, was Iranian with a
Greek influence. The kingdom itself was reputed to be wealthy — the
wealthiest of them all; Strabo refers to rich valleys and upland pastures;
Antiochus I had offered to buy off Ventidius Bassus with 1,000 talents
(24 million sesterces); and later, Gaius reimbursed to Antiochus IV the
100 million sesterces said to be the accumulated revenue to Rome from
twenty years.125

Less can be said of Emesa. Only four monarchs span the period from
restoration in 20 B.C. to annexation probably not long after a.p. 72. The
family lived on as hereditary priests of the local Syrian deity (Baal).
Emesa, like the other allied kingdoms, had become enmeshed in a
network of family alliances through royal marriages.!26 None, however,
were to be as successful as the marriage, more than a century after the
ending of the kingdom, of Iulia Domna to the future emperor Septimius
Severus. The result was to be three Emesan empresses and their children
ruling in Rome.

123 As analaand probably five cobortes Commagenorum —¢. 3,000 men: Kennedy 1980(E 1022) 91-7.

124 Joseph. AJ xvttt.5 3; contra, Tac. Ann. 1.42.5. Cf. the parallel situation in Judaea after Herod’s
death in 4 B.c.: Joseph. AJ xvit.299; 304-14; BJ 11.80; 84-91.

125 Tac. Hist. 11.81; Suet. Calig. 14. 3.

126 Sullivan, 1978 (E 1065); (2 1224); (E 878); (E 1064).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

732 14¢. SYRIA

2. The Nabataean kingdom

In contrast to Commagene and Emesa, we know a great deal about the
government, character and development of the Nabataean kingdom.
Arabia Petraea — the heart of the kingdom — is unpromising terrain for
human settlement. Composed in large part of rock and desert, lacking
any substantial perennial water course and dependent on seasonal rains,
it is no surprise that in the late fourth century,!2’ its Arab population was
nomadic, albeit already engaged in a lucrative commerce. Three centur-
ies later Strabo knew them as a settled people living in houses. By then
too, their realm included the Hedjaz, the Negev Desert and the fertile
Hauran. In the first centuries B.c. and a.p. they developed a politically
powerful and culturally vigorous and innovative society.

Nabataean monarchs enjoyed long reigns: only five between c. 58/7
B.c. and a.p. 106. On the other hand, it appears from Strabo that
effective power lay with an appointed minister (epétropos).!28 The only
named minister, Syllaeus, evidently wielded considerable power and
influence; he proposed marriage for himself to Herod’s daughter and
evidently sought the kingship at Petra. It was Syllaeus too whom we
twice find visiting Rome;!29 indeed, no Nabataean king is ever known to
have visited Rome nor apparently did any ever receive either Roman
citizenship or the marks of honour accorded their neighbours: toga picta,
praetorian or consular ornaments.'30 Like Herod’s kingdom, Arabia
Petraea may have been divided into toparchies; certainly, regional
administration was in the hands of strategoi (strg), who were probably
local tribal chiefs recognized as royal governors.13!

Security was provided by a standing army which was modelled to
some extent on that of Rome. Thus, alongside the hellenistic chiliarch
and hipparch one finds the centurion (gntryn’).'32, Despite explicit
statements as to their unwarlike character,'33 over two centuries the
military record of Nabataean soldiers is good.'34 Moreover, they were
called upon to assist Roman campaigns on at least four occasions!*5 and
ultimately the royal army was absorbed into the Roman aaxilia as six
cohortes Petraeaorum, some 4,500 men.

'27 Diod. 11.48. 1f of XIx.94.2-5. 128 xvi.g.21 (779C).

129 Joseph. AJ xvi.224, 322; BJ 1.487 (marriage); Joseph. AJ xvt.295f (kingship); Joseph. 4/
xvi.25§0 and 335~52 (9 and 6 B.c.); cf. Strab. xv1.4.25 (782—3C) (embassies).

1% Cf. Braund 1984 (C 254) 39-53. 131 Cf. Joseph. AJ xvut.r12.

132, Jaussen and Savignac 1909(£ 1017) 1 189f, no. 29; 154f no. 7; tz0f no. 20; 202ff no. 38; 192f no.
44.; Periplus 19. 133 E.g. Joseph. AJ xtv.31; Diod. 1.54.3; Strab. xv1.4.23 (780-1C).

14 See D. Graf, ‘The Nabataean army and the Cohortes U!piae Petracorum’, in E. Dabrowa (ed.)
The Roman and Byzantine Army in the East (Krakow, 1994) 265-311.

138 Caesar at Alexandria (47 8.c.), Aelius Gallus (26/5 8.c.), Varus (6 8.c.) and for the Jewish
Revolt (A.p. 68-70).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CLIENT STATES 733

The sudden Nabataean appearance at Hegra, deep in the Hedjaz
5ookm south east of Petra, may have been inspired by Rome.!* The new
territory may in fact have been that ruled by a kinsman of the Nabataean
king at the time of Aelius Gallus’ campaign. There, in a region of
Lihyanite and later Thamudic settlement, appeared a series of some
seventy-nine monumental rock-cut tombs similar in design and quality
to those at Petra. Unlike the latter, many bear dated inscriptions, often
naming civil and military officers, a few citing distant origins, and
ranging in date from a.p. 1 to 75. All of this points to a major
development there, perhaps a military colony, but so far nothing more of
the town has been unearthed than an apparent ‘residential area’.137 Now
too we have evidence of settlement elsewhere in the region: ten similar
tombs have come to light at al-Bad (Ptolemy’s Madian) and another at al-
Disa.!38 More exciting still are the numerous other small Nabataean sites
in the Hedjaz identified especially in the coastal region around Aynunah
(probably Leuke Kome ~ see below, p. 734).199

There is similar evidence from the other two major acquisitions. The
Negev underwent a phase of development in the early Principate. The
evidence suggests growing settlements at Mampsis and along the line of
the Petra—Gaza road which continued through into the Roman period.
In the north, Zenodorus had sold Auranitis to the Nabataeans in 30 B.C.
for a modest 50 talents. The scanty physical evidence so far suggests
intensification of occupation about the middle of the first century a.p. At
Bostra there is growing evidence to suggest a substantial Nabataean
settlement there. The ‘Nabataean’ arch is now confirmed as first century
A.D., probably second half, and it would seem that the main thorough-
fare leading to it may have been a contemporary via sacra joining the
settlement at its west end to a religious enclave at the east.1#0

Of existing settlements, Petra was also being developed: some of the
tombs date to this period, the theatre is early first century, and the ¢emenos
at least of the Qasr el-Bint temple is of the reign of Aretas IV (9 B.c.—A.D.
40). With the benefit of precisely dated examples at Hegra, many of the
very striking monumental tombs of the city may be placed in the same
period, and it is arguable that the Khazneh, the “Treasury’, too is of this
same period.'4!

136 What appears to be a foundation coin naming Hegra dates to between g B.c. and A.p. 18
(Meshorer 1975 (B 343) 5 3f) and the earliest of the dated inscriptions there is for a.p. 1, the same year
in which the expeditio Arabica of Gaius Caesar brought him to the head of the Gulf of Aqaba.

137 Winnett and Reed 1970 (E 1070) 178ff.

138 Parr ef al. 1971 (E 1048) 30-5 (al-Bad); Ingraham ef a/. 1981 (E 1014) 76 (al-Disa).

1% Ingraham ef al. 1981 (E 1014); cf. Dayton 1972 (£ 997) 46; Bawden 1978 (£ 986) 11; Parr ef al.
1968/9 (E 1048); 1971 (£ 1048).

140 Peters 1983 (E 1050) 273-7; cf. Miller 1983 (E 1041); Dentzer 1984 (E 998); 1986 (E 999) 1.2, 406;
Sartre 1985 (E 1057) 57-62. See now the evidence for Umm el-Jemal: De Vries 1986 (£ 1003) 229ff.

1 Schmidt-Colinet 1980 (E 1059) 217~33; cf. Wright 1962 (E 1071); McKenzie 1990 (£ 1038).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

734 14¢. SYRIA

All of these developments suggest expanding economic activity and a
more cosmopolitan outlook. Certainly, so much construction at Petra —
over 500 monumental tombs — and in other centres will not only have
provided employment for the architects, masons, plasterers and other
artisans attested in inscriptions, but have stimulated urbanization. The
construction techniques and design show evidence of Alexandrian
influence and some at least of the many foreigners at Petra,42 may have
been imported artisans and artists. The finished product, however, is
both impressive and unique to the Nabataeans. Some of these foreigners
will have been merchants selling as well as buying. The Nabataeans had
already begun to produce their own highly distinctive fine painted
pottery in the late Republic, but at several sites imported wares have
turned up. The Nabataean potter’s workshop at Avdat (first half of the
first century A.D.), for example, seems to have sold alongside its own
produce ‘Herodian’ lamps, Eastern and Italian sigi/lata.'

Financial support for such endeavours no longer rested so firmly on
trade. By the beginning of the Christian era, much of the south Arabian
trade had long been moved direct by sea to Egypt! with serious
consequences for Nabataean commercial well-being. Caravans did still
operate through Arabia Petraea. Strabo!*5 refers to traders with loads of
south Arabian aromatics travelling between Leuke Kome and Petra
thence to Rhinocolura ‘in such numbers of men and camels that they
differ in no respect from an army’, and in the time of Malichus II (a.p.
40-70),there are reports! of many but modest sized ships coming
loaded from Arabia to Leuke Kome which had a centurion supervising
the collection of a 25 per cent tax, and from which a road led to Petra.
Leuke Kome has now been identified with Aynunah.'47 Nearby one
finds a major roadstead at Khuraybah and a series of Nabataean and
Roman sites in and around the springs and gardens of Aynunah itself,
which has produced over one hundred rock-cut tombs and a major
building with over 130 rooms, corridors, towers and courtyards.148 Such
activity required protection and it is probably no coincidence that most
of the attested Nabataean garrisons and camps are in the Hedjaz, Hisma
and Negev.

Trade links in the north, possibly reflecting a development of the
Wadi Sirhan route from Jauf to counter the decline in Arabian traffic and
also to exploit the developing Palmyrene monopoly of trade from the
Gulf, are suggested by the presence of a Nabataean ethnarch at

442 Strab. xvi.4.21 (779C).
143, Negev 1974 (E 1045) 23-42. There were Nabataean merchants at Puteoli¢. 30 B.c. (CIS tr 1.2:
aa Strab. xvi.4.24 (781-2¢). Dihle 1965 (£ 1004) 25 suggests the transfer had begun in the late

hellenistic period. 145 xvi.g.23 (780-1C). 6 Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, 19.
47 Kirwan 1981 (E 1028) 1984 {E 1029). 48 Ingraham ef a/. 1981 (EB 1014) 63ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CLIENT STATES 735

Damascus in the last years of Tiberius.149 To this may be added the
significant physical evidence from Decapolis cities, notably Philadelphia
and Gerasa, for Nabataean communities there too.15°

There was some industry in the kingdom apart from the ceramic.
Copper was extracted from the mines in the Wadi Araba and in the
Sinai!5! and those south of Petra, and asphalt had been exploited around
the Dead Sea since the fourth century. Although no silver source is
known in Arabia Petraea, both bronze and silver coinage appear
throughout the two centuries before annexation,'52 and at least one
Roman extorted an indemnity in silver from the Nabataeans in the late
Republic.'53

The foundation of the Nabataean economy continued to be sheep-and
camel-raising as it had been in the early fourth century.54 Now,
however, they were much more involved in arable farming. Part of their
realm offered good farming land, especially in the new lands of the
Hauran; in the low rainfall of the Negev and Hedjaz the key lay in their
skill in hydraulic engineering. No longer just the collection and storage
in cisterns of water for their flocks, now too there was the beginning of
‘water-harvesting’.!55

The long reign of Aretas IV appears as a golden age of tranquillity and
development in Arabia Petraea. Eighty per cent of known Nabataean
coins belong to his reign.156 Nor were they struck to pay extra troops.
Quite the reverse; after assisting Varus in 4 B.c. there was no warfare
again for forty years: in part the removal of a royal neighbour from
Judaea itself and the marriage of Aretas’ daughter to Herod Antipas, but
largely the peace demanded by Rome between neighbours and an end of
the raiding which was a feature of Nabataean life until the early
Principate.'5’

The population of Petra at least is characterized in Strabo as a
harmonious one: formal litigation was exclusively between foreigners or
by foreigners against Nabataeans.'!58 They appear as very materialistic,
but with few slaves. Drinking parties were popular but drunkenness said
to be limited; singing girls performed at their communal feasts. These
last were probably religious. Temples included ¢riclinia, funerary ban-
quets formed part of the ceremonies at the famous rock tombs and they
are attested also in the cemetery at Mampsis.159

49 2 Cor. 11.52; an official in charge of a Nabataean community is the more likely explanation
rather than unlikely Nabataean rule.

150 Graf 1986 (E 1011) 788-93; Gatier forthcoming (E 1009).

151 ‘Smith’ is a common element in Sinaitic Nabatacan names: Negev 1986 (E 1047) tof.

182. Meshorer 1975 (B 343) 00.

153. Joseph. AJ xiv.81f; BJ 1.159 (Scaurus); cf. AJ x1v.103; BJ 1.178 (Gabinius).

14 Joseph AJ x1x.94.4. 155 Evenari ef al. 1982 (E 1008) 95-178; Ingraham ef al. 1981 (E 10144).

186 Meshorer 1975 (B 343) 41. 'S7 Strab. xvi.4.21 (779C). 188 xv1.g.21 (779C).

139 The meal included olives, dates, fowl and mutton (Negev 1986 (E 1047) 92).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

736 14¢. SYRIA

The Nabataean religion involved worship both at sacred high places
and in temples (above, p. 726f). Their Supreme God, Dushara, ‘the One
of Shara’, the escarpment south of Petra, is widely commemorated.!©
However, one of the earliest and grandest ‘Nabataean’ temples is that of
Baalshamin at Seeia in the Hauran.'6! There, a huge isolated sanctuary,
dedicated (probably by Herod the Great) between 33/2 and 2/1 B.c., was
constructed.

Iv. CONCLUSION

On a July day in 69, Antioch witnessed an event which would have
astonished its inhabitants of a century before. The governor of the
province, Mucianus, made a speech to the populace in the theatre in
justification of Vespasian’s proclamation as emperor and sought their
support for the civil war. Equally remarkable, he was able to gain the
sympathy of the populace by suggesting that the local garrisons were to
be transferred to Germany, and that they were to lose the troops they
were used to and with whom there had been a great deal of
intermarriage. 162

Attitudes had changed and the reasons are not hard to find. Stable and
more efficient government had been introduced and the hand of Rome
was relatively light in its effect on local culture. Peace and security had
been firmly established. Even the recent wars of Corbulo had had little
direct effect on the province and there was no sympathy for the Jewish
rebels. A few cities had been founded and urban development given a
significant impetus. Trade had recovered and shrewd Syrian merchants
could fully exploit their safe access to Mediterranean markets. The
contrast with the last generation of Seleucid rule and of the last days of
the Republic was only too clear.

The shape of the province was not yet complete — that was to be the
work of the Flavians and, finally, Trajan, in removing the last of the petty
rulers. But the transition from the bitter, resentful, ravaged province of
the gos B.c. to the stable rapidly integrating province of the second
century A.D. was well advanced.!6

16 Wenning, 1987 (E 1069). 161 Dentzer and Dentzer 1981 (E 1002). 162 Tac. Hist. 11.80.

163 The text of this chapter was completed in 1987 and it has therefore not been possible to take
account of recent important work, in particular, F. Millar, The Roman Near East (Cambridge, Mass.,
1993); M. Sartre, L’ orient romain (Paris, 1991).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 14d

JUDAEA

MARTIN GOODMAN

I. THE HERODS

The political history of Judaea in the period covered by this volume is
particularly well attested through the preservation of the work of the
Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote after a.D. 70 first a detailed
account of the Judaean revolt against Rome from A.D. 66 to A.D. 73 or 74
and then an apologetic version for non-Jewish readers of Jewish history
to the outbreak of that war.!

A priest from Jerusalem and a commander of the Jewish forces in
Galilee during the war, Josephus was steeped in the traditions of his
nation. He was an acute observer, but his evidence is tainted by the
traumas of his own career. Captured by Roman forces in a.D. 67, he
espoused the enemy cause with a wholeheartedness that won him the
favour of the future emperor Vespasian and enabled him to spend the last
part of his life, including his active years as a writer, in comfort, probably
in Rome.

The bias in Josephus’ narratives, particularly of the first century a.D.,
when Judaea fell under direct Roman rule, can be partly checked from
other sources. Inscriptions provide less useful evidence than elsewhere
in the Roman East, for the Judaean ruling class never picked up the
epigraphic habit except in the medium of coinage, but the contribution
of archaeology is large and growing. The Gospels and Acts of the
Apostles add further evidence although, since they are theological
documents, their accuracy cannot be taken for granted. But Josephus’
narrative is best checked through his own inconsistencies: his detailed
account often reveals information that his more sweeping generaliza-
tions and general tendentious approach tend to obfuscate.?

! The main sources for the reign of Herod are the parallel accounts in Joseph. BJ 1.211-11.166 and
AJ xiv.271~—xvui end. In both narratives Josephus used but corrected Nicolaus of Damascus. In AJ
he may have had additional material from Strabo, Historiae and possibly a biography of Herod by a
certain Prolemy. Cf., above all, Schalit 1969 (E 1206). Fora basic introduction to the rabbinic sources
used in this chapter, and the form of citation, see Stemberger 1992 (B 12154).

2 On approaches to Josephus, cf. Rajak 1983 (B 147) and works cited in Feldman 1986 (B 50). For
the coins of Herod and his successors, cf. Meshorer 1982 (B 344). For recent excavations, see Avi-
Yonah and Stern 1975-8 (B 1078); Avigad 1984 (2 1080).

737

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Map 20. Judaea.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE HERODS 739

Herod to some extent presented himself as a Jewish monarch, and for
some Romans his family were seen as representative of Jewry.> But his
rule over Judaea was inaugurated in 4o B.c. and preserved until ¢. 4 B.c.
almost entirely at the behest of Rome.

Herod’s story begins with the career of his father Antipater, who had
taken advantage since the sixties B.c. of internal dissensions within the
Hasmonaean dynasty to promote himself, trading on the obscurity of his
own Idumaean lineage, which made him appear no danger to his
Hasmonaean patron, Hyrcanus II; the Idumaeans had only been forcibly
converted to Judaism in the 120s B.c. and could still be insulted as only
half-Jews by some Judaeans.* At the same time he cultivated Roman
officials in the East, for their influence had been decisive since 63 B.C. in
the balance of power between the various Hasmonaean factions. In 44
B.c. Antipater’s position thus relied on his friendship with Caesar, but by
43 B.c. he had rapidly won the confidence of Cassius and persuaded
Hyrcanus to support the Liberators of Rome. His power was cut short
only by his assassination in a court intrigue.

That it was Herod who inherited Antipater’s position and not the
latter’s older son Phasael was due to Herod’s demonstration of energy
and competence in his father’s lifetime. At the age of twenty-five in 48
B.c. he had already acted briefly as governor of Galilee on Caesar’s
behalf. When in 43 B.c. he proceeded to destroy his father’s murderer
and the latter’s supporters with Cassius’ approval, his role as Hyrcanus’
chief adviser was certain.

Herod’s further progression to the crown was brought about by the
continuing chaos in the eastern Mediterranean before and after Philippi.
The Liberators urgently needed funds and Herod dutifully raised
considerable quantities, first in Galilee and later in Judaea and Syria.
When some cities in Judaea refused to pay, he ruthlessly subjected them
to slavery. Meanwhile his position in Hyrcanus’ estimation was streng-
thened when he routed the king’s nephew Antigonus.

Cassius’ defeat at Philippi did not check Herod’s rise: Antony,
concerned not to lose a powerful friend of Rome, accepted the fiction
that Hyrcanus and his side had supported the Liberators unwillingly and
advanced Herod and Phasael to the position of tetrarchs; the precise
relationship between the brothers and Hyrcanus, who was entitled
ethnarch, is unclear.

This promotion of Antipater’s sons was greeted with rioting by the
Jews but enforced with bloodshed, only to be rendered nominal in 41/40
B.c. by the Parthian invasion of Palestine and the installation in Judaea of
Antigonus; he was to be king over the Gentile population and High

3 Cf. ‘Herodis dies’ at Pers. v.180, as a description of the sabbath in the middle of the first century
A.D. 4 Joseph. AJ xrv.403.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

740 14d. JUDAEA

Priest of the Jews, who welcomed his accession and the legitimacy which
he advertised on his coins. Phasael was killed or forced to commit
suicide. Hyrcanus was sent to Parthia and, by mutilation of his ears,
rendered incapable of holding the high priesthood. Herod in early 40
B.C. fled to Rome.

That flight, which implied that only in Rome did he have a hope for
the future, proved opportune. The triumvirs, especially Antony, to
whom the eastern provinces had been allotted, saw in Herod the surest
way to return Judaea to Roman control. No adult male Hasmonaean was
readily available for promotion as a puppet ruler. The installation of a
new family as monarchs of a client state was new in Roman foreign
policy; but Herod was known in Roman society, he was a competent
soldier, his father had been Caesar’s friend, as an associate of Hyrcanus
he was assumed to understand Jewish society. Less tangible but no less
important a factor was his luck: he was in Rome just after the treaty of
Brundisium, the right place at the right time.

Herod was granted the throne of Judaea and Samaria by the triumvirs
with the support of the Senate in autumn 4o B.c. He celebrated,
incongfuously, with a sacrifice to Jupiter Capitolinus and set sail for
Syria to take possession of his kingdom.

For three years all his efforts were without avail since he lacked
sufficient forces. Only in 38 did Antony send two legions under Sosius
for an attack on Jerusalem. Despite an attempt to win popular support
by celebrating his delayed marriage with the Hasmonaean Mariamme,
Herod was faced by the implacable opposition of his putative subjects.
The reduction of Jerusalem, probably in July 37 B.c. after a siege of more
than seven months, was Sosius’ victory, for which he was not slow to
claim credit and a triumph; Herod prevented the sack of his new capital
only with difficulty. Antony, once again breaking with precedent, had
Antigonus, who begged for mercy, executed.

Herod’s loyalty to Antony was as great as his enthusiasm for Cassius
had once been, and he proved his worth to his new patron during the
Parthian campaign.> Antony in turn protected Herod even when
Cleopatra demanded Judaea for herself or her children; the triumvir
allowed her to take in 36 B.c. only the territory of Jericho and the rich
balsam groves of Engedi near the Dead Sea, which Herod then cleverly
leased back, thereby retaining political control over his domain despite
the financial cost. That cost was augmented by his forced agreement to
guarantee the rent of territory that Cleopatra had taken from the
Nabataean king Malchus.

This friendship with Antony made Herod’s position precarious after
Actium, but a campaign in Nabataea in 32-31 B.c., undertaken at the

5 Joseph. AJ x1v.439-46.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE HERODS 741

instigation of Cleopatra, prevented his presence on Antony’s side in the
battle itself, and in spring 30 B.c. Octavian not only confirmed his rule
but presented him with an enlarged kingdom which included both the
territory taken by Cleopatra and the fertile coastal plain of Judaea. Herod
was to reign without further serious threat until his death in ¢. 4 B.C.,
becoming so firm a friend of Augustus that his territory was enlarged
first by the addition of Trachonitis, Batanaea and Auranitis in 24/23 B.C.
and then by Ulatha and Panias in the north in 20 B.c.

The apparent peace of these years was only achieved by continuing
repression of opposition to Herod’s rule by his subjects. In 26 B.c.
Costobar, the governor of Idumaea, who was justifiably suspected of
treason, was put to death. Disaffection in the Trachonitis caused endemic
banditry in these border lands but no political threat. The refusal of more
than 6,000 Pharisees to take the oath of loyalty demanded from them in
c. 8 B.c. caused Herod annoyance but was not dangerous. Only as Herod
approached death did an uprising in Jerusalem gather momentum in
objection to the erection of a golden eagle above the Temple; even then it
was only on his demise that widespread revolt broke out.

More dangerous to Herod was the disaffection within his family which
was a constant feature of his reign from the beginning. His marriage to
Mariamme in 37 B.C. was intended to boost his own prestige, but as a
Hasmonaean princess she carried the hopes of all Jews who resented the
Idumaean intruder. Herod needed either to eradicate or to harness the
power she represented. That he was in two minds can be shown from his
treatment of her younger brother Aristobulus III, whom he installed,
aged sixteen, as High Priest in ¢. 35 B.c., only to panic when he was
acclaimed with too much enthusiasm by the pilgrim crowd in Jerusalem.
Herod staged an ‘accidental’ drowning for Aristobulus in the swimming
bath in his palace in Jericho. Similar ambivalence was shown towards his
old patron Hyrcanus, whose release Herod contrived from Parthia in 36
B.C. only to have him executed in 30 B.c. for alleged conspiracy with the
king of Nabataea.

Such treatment of her father and brother was not calculated to endear
Herod to Mariamme. He suspected her, probably with some justifica-
tion, of rebellious designs, particularly during his own absences from the
country; concern at the political threat she represented was augmented
by fierce sexual jealousy of possible marital infidelity with those to
whom she was entrusted while he was away. In 29 B.c. she was put on
trial and executed. Herod’s personal sorrow was perhaps compensated
by the diminution of open opposition to his rule for the next twenty
years, but it is at least possible that the subtle calculations of the power-
seeker had in this case been upset by the savage passions of the infatuated
lover.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

742 14d. JUDAEA

The bitter harvest of Mariamme’s execution was reaped when her
mother Alexandra attempted rebellion in 28 B.c. and was killed; the
poison lingered also in Herod’s relationship with her two elder sons,
Aristobulus and Alexander, when they reached manhood. Herod had
sent the young princes to Rome in 24/23 B.c. for an education in the
house of a Pollio,® and when they returned to Jerusalem in c. 16 B.c. he
made it clear that he wished them to succeed him. But such plans proved
disingenuous. Herod’s own sister Salome and his brother Pheroras, who
had been since 20 B.c. tetrarch of Peraea, were unwilling to see their
Idumaean family eclipsed by their half-Hasmonaean nephews. They
persuaded Herod to recall his eldest son Antipater, whose mother was
the Idumaean Doris; Antipater was accordingly also marked out for
preferment by being sent to Rome in 13 B.c.

If Herod hoped in this way to control the ambitions of Mariamme’s
sons and the jealousy of his other relations, he was disappointed.
Antipater began a concentrated intrigue to prove the treachery of the
young princes to their father. The charges may even have been true, for
Mariamme’s sons had little reason to like Herod and by virtue of their
Hasmonaean ancestry could expect some popular support. But the truth
hardly mattered. Herod accused his sons before Augustus in ¢. 13 B.C.
They were acquitted then and given a future share in the kingdom with
Antipater, but Alexander at least was suspected of continued plots,
perhaps with Herod’s brother Pheroras. After further accusations, in ¢. 7
B.C. the young men were tried before a partially Roman court at Berytus
and condemned. Herod had them rapidly executed before disaffection
spread. Their main accuser Antipater, after brief glory as heir apparent in
Rome in 5 B.c., was in turn accused of conniving with Pheroras against
Herod; Pheroras died of natural causes before execution, but Antipater
was put to death a few days before his father expired inc. 4 B.c., as much
for contriving his brothers’ downfall as for his own ambitions.

Such turmoil within the dynasty left the line of succession hardly clear
when Herod died. Herod had in a final will left his kingdom to
Archelaus, the offspring of a Samaritan wife Malthace. Archelaus’
younger full brother Antipas was left Galilee and Peraea, while Philip,
son of a woman from Jerusalem called Cleopatra, was to rule the north-
eastern wild country of Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, Batanaea and Panias.
These provisions overrode an earlier will which, for reasons now
unclear, had left everything to Antipas, and in disappointment he went
to Rome to persuade Augustus to uphold his father’s earlier intention.

The fraternal struggle took place before Augustus’ consilium in Rome
rather than in Judaea. The choice would be made by the princeps alone.
None of the three men had been groomed as successor by Herod, since

6 Probably Asinius Pollio, but Vedius Pollio is also possible, cf. Syme 1961 (D 69).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE HERODS 743

the three dead sons had been preferred for that role, though all of them
had received part of their education in Rome.

In Judaea, immediate unrest, reviving the cause of the religious
enthusiasts put to death for taking down the eagle from the Temple (see
above, p. 741), was partially defused first by Archelaus’ promise to
accede to demands for lower taxes and the removal of Herod’s favourites
from high positions and then by bloodshed, but more serious distur-
bances erupted when Archelaus had set off for Rome accompanied by his
rivals and by a delegation of Jews who had been encouraged by the
legate of Syria to request that Judaea be incorporated within his
province and the troublesome Herods deposed.

The causes of these more serious agitations in the absence of the
Herodian princes were probably varied.’ In Galilee a certain Judas, son
of a bandit named Ezekias who had opposed Herod in the forties B.c.
(above, p. 739), sought power; he was perhaps a remnant of a powerful
Hasmonaean family, in which case his aim will have been independence
from both Herodian and Roman control.’ In Peraea a certain Simon, a
former slave of Herod, proclaimed himself king. In the Judaean
countryside a former shepherd called Athronges, with his four brothers,
also sought royal power.

It is not likely that these two latter rebellions were serious political
attacks on the Herodian dynasty. The humble origins of the rebel leaders
may perhaps be significant in assessing their motivation. It is possible
that Athronges, with his four brothers, deliberately evoked the spirit of
the Maccabees. Both he and Simon may have claimed religious sanction
for national rebellion, but there is no direct evidence for this in the scanty
report in Josephus.?

Meanwhile in Jerusalem itself riots were sparked off by the behaviour
of the procurator Sabinus, who had been sent into Judaea from Syria by
Augustus to control the country while the will was being debated: a
pilgrim crowd during the feast of Pentecost attacked him for reasons not
known, and Sabinus retaliated by taking 4oo talents from the Temple,
thereby exacerbating the hostility. Quite different in intention and
political significance was the revolt in Idumaea by some of Herod’s
veteran soldiers, for this mutiny was led by some of Herod’s own
relatives; their names are not known, but the weakness of Archelaus’
position was emphasized by such disaffection even in the heartland of his
family’s traditional support.!©

Suppression of all these disturbances was carried out with efficient

7 For events after Herod’s death, see Joseph. AJ xvm.206-323; BJ 11.1~100; Nicolaus of
Damascus, FGrH go F 136(8){11).

8 See discussion of the role of this Judas in Freyne 1980 (£ 1115) 214-17.

9 For the link to the Maccabees, see Farmer 1958 (£ 1113). 10 BJ 11.55—78.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

744 14d. JUDAEA

ruthlessness by Varus, the legate of Syria, with two legions. Herod’s
final will was upheld by Augustus: Archelaus was confirmed as ruler in
Judaea but with the title of ethnarch rather than king and the cities of
Gaza, Gadara and Hippos removed from his territory; Antipas received
Galilee, and Philip was granted his domain east of the Galilean lake. Both
these latter had only the title of tetrarch, but they both enjoyed
independence from their brother’s sway.

On his return from Rome Archelaus found his land pacified but his
subjects deeply hostile; a legion was left in Jerusalem to prevent further
violent outbreaks. Josephus’ account of Archelaus’ rule is very skimpy;
it seems that the history written by Nicolaus of Damascus, Herod’s court
historian, on which Josephus relied for the narrative of Herod’s own
rule, now came to an end. Atany rate, in a.p. 6 Archelaus was deposed by
Augustus and banished to Vienne in southern Gaul, and Judaea was
taken under direct Roman control.!!

Archelaus’ brothers fared somewhat better. Philip remained for most
of his rule ensconced peacefully in his somewhat remote territory,
administering it, according to Josephus, with conscientious moderation
until his undramatic death while still tetrarch in ¢. a.p. 33. Antipas ruled
for some years in greater style in Galilee, but inc. A.D. 34 his marriage to
his elder brother’s wife Herodias brought him the enmity of the
neighbouring Arab king, Aretas IV of Nabataea, whose daughter,
Antipas’ first wife, was slighted by the incestuous relationship. Enmity
led to war in A.D. 36, and both kings suffered censure by Tiberius. When,
at Herodias’ insistence, Antipas in A.D. 39 requested the title of king
from Gaius, he was deposed and sent into exile in Lugdunum; Herodias
accompanied him.

The beneficiary of Antipas’ misfortune was his nephew and Herodias’
brother, Herod Agrippa I.!2 Agrippa’s career, which had fluctuated from
extreme misfortune to the heights of power, was nearing its peak when,
probably in a.p. 40, he added Antipas’ ethnarchy in Galilee to the
territory which he had already inherited from Philip in a.p. 37. Agrippa’s
success exemplifies the Herodian technique in the pursuit of political
power. The son of Aristobulus, who was executed by Herod inc. 7 B.c.,
he grew up close to the imperial court in Rome, but without official
position or private income he ran up enormous debts and returned at
some time after A.D. 23 in despair to Palestine. Rescued briefly by his
brother-in-law Antipas, he made his way eventually in spring A.D. 36 to
Italy, where his charm enabled him to join the emperor on Capri and to
win the friendship of Gaius. Imprisoned by Tiberius for referring too

't Sources for Archelaus’ rule are Joseph. AJ xvit.339-55; BJ t.111-17.

12 For the career of Agrippal, see Joseph. AJ xvitt.143—239, XIX.274—3 59; BJ 11.1 78-82, 206-22;
Acts 12; ».Bikk.3: 4; m.Sot. 7:8. See Schwartz 1987 (E 1209).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE HERODS 745

openly to his wish to see Gaius succeed to the Principate, he was released
with honour when that event came about in spring A.D. 37 and was
granted by the new emperor both the territory once governed by Philip
and the tetrarchy of Abila in the Lebanon, with the title of king.

Skill at court intrigue and the friendship of a Roman prince had thus
elevated Agrippa, and the same factors were to enlarge him still further.
While Gaius was alive Agrippa preferred to rule his subjects through
deputies, and frequently returned to Rome where real power lay. It wasa
wise decision: in a dramatic episode described in detail by Josephus (see
above, p. 230), Agrippa played a central role in the elevation of Claudius
to the Principate in A.D. 41 after the assassination of Gaius, and Claudius
showed his gratitude by granting him the entire kingdom once ruled by
Herod.

Agrippa now went to Jerusalem to enjoy the benefits of his intrigue.
Popular with the people partly because of his Hasmonaean links through
his grandmother, he ruled in a style sufficiently magnificent to arouse a
suspicion in the mind of Marsus, the legate of Syria, that, by convoking
in Tiberias a meeting of five other petty kings allied to Rome, he might
be plotting rebellion. The charge was implausible, for Agrippa would
have gained nothing and lost much by independence, but his painful
death ‘eaten up by worms’ put an end to speculation.'3

No other member of the dynasty of Herod was to achieve such power
in Judaea. Some of Herod’s less prominent descendants were granted
territories, but these were in obscure parts of the eastern empire and little
connected with Judaea:'* A grippa’s own children were still young on his
death in a.p. 44.'5 Their later considerable influence on Judaean society
was achieved more through their prestige among Jews derived from
their father than from the grant of power by Rome. Thus Agrippa II,
who was in Rome in A.D. 44, was given in A.D. 49 the kingdom of Chalcis
in the Lebanon that his uncle Herod had enjoyed from A.D. 41 to 48, and
then in A.D. 53, in exchange for Chalcis, a larger territory including both
the tetrarchy once ruled by Philip and other land east of the Sea of
Galilee. Furthermore, some time after a.pD. 54, Nero added to this
kingdom parts of Galilee itself near the lake and a small area in the
northern Peraea. But his political importance rested less on these
territories, which merely brought him revenue, than on his role in
Jerusalem, where he was granted the right, previously held by his father
and uncle, to control the administration of the Temple. Not that even
this control was entirely secure, for despite strenuous efforts he was

'3. Descriptions of Agrippa’s death are given in AJ x1x.343—52; Acts 12:19-23.

4 See Jones 1938 (E 1152) 259-61.

'5 For the careers of Agrippa’s children see Joseph. AJ xvitt—xx; BJ u—vur; Suet. Tit. 7; Tac.
Hist. 1.2.81; Dio LXvI.15.3—5, 18.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

746 14d. JUDAEA

unable to prevent the priests building a wall in the late fifties a.p. to
block the view from his palace into the interior of the Temple.'°

Agrippa II’s sisters, who had no formal powers at all, wielded hardly
less influence. Drusilla married the Roman governor of Judaea, Anto-
nius (or Claudius) Felix. Berenice achieved notoriety as paramour of the
future emperor Titus.

Throughout this long and complex history over more than a hundred
years, Roman favour to Herod and his descendants was remarkably
constant and public. Their power depended upon Rome, which guaran-
teed their fidelity, while on the whole they showed fair competence in the
administration of areas which, though not of major consequence in the
immediate context of the empire’s defence, were not themselves easy to
hold in subjection. Each Herodian ruler was judged by his efficiency; at
any rate, when they were grossly incompetent at keeping the peace, they
were easily enough deposed, as Archelaus and Antipas discovered.

Jewish support for the Herods was, not surprisingly, much less
enthusiastic, particularly when their regime was contrasted unfavour-
ably to the Hasmonaeans they had supplanted. The myth of the
Hasmonaeans as national liberators remained potent even in the first
century a.D.'7 Herod and his successors could only survive through a
complete break with this past. All the male members of the Hasmonaean
dynasty were dead by 30 B.c.; the women were married to Herod’s own
close relatives. It is probable that the supporters and friends who had
formed the courts of the last Hasmonaeans were ruthlessly eliminated:
forty-five of Antigonus’ associates were killed. It is unlikely to be chance
that no family whose original prominence can be traced to before Herod
can be discerned in the detailed prosopography of Judaea in the first
century a.p.!8

In their place Herod promoted his own men. His court was largely
composed of Gentiles who could be guaranteed not to seek influence
except through his patronage; thus, most of his closest advisers, his
generals and the tutors of his children were not Jewish. Exempted from
this rule were only two categories of Jews. His own family was trusted
by Herod to a remarkable extent, as in the nomination of his brother
Pheroras as tetrarch of Peraea in 20 B.C.; in his case, such trust proved
misplaced (see above, p. 742). The second category comprised the
occupants of those positions in Judaean society which by their nature
could only be filled by Jews.

Most important of these was the high priesthood, which had since the
Persian period marked out its holder as a secular as well as religious
leader. When the attempt to install Aristobulus II foundered (see above,

16 Joseph. AJ xx.189-94. ‘7 Cf. Farmer 1956 (£ 1112).
18 Cf. the discussion in Stern 1976 (£ 1218) 11.561-630.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE HERODS 747

Pp. 741), Herod filled the post with Jews from Babylonia and Alexandria
whose unsullied priestly birth could not be disputed but whose influence
in Judaea was probably negligible. Only the family of Boethus, an
Alexandrian who held the office from ¢. 25—4 B.c. was permitted some
secular advancement. The clothes of the High Priest, which had once
enshrined oracular powers and still apparently bestowed exceptional
prestige on the wearer, were kept in Herod’s possession further to limit
the pontiffs’ power. Most dramatically of all, Herod inaugurated a
custom derived from pagan cults of shortening the tenure of the office.

Thus was opposition effectively silenced. Herod’s sister’s husbands
proved some danger: both Joseph, executed in 34 B.c., and Costobar,
executed in ¢. 26 B.c., had been married to Salome, and their ambition
was suspect because of this proximity to the royal house. Few other
Idumaean friends were allowed to join the circle of power; of these, only
Salome’s third husband Alexas is known to have retained his family’s
influence. The power of the ancient theocracy was broken. Any change
in institutions of government was probably less significant than this
removal of key personnel and their replacement with Herod’s own
supporters.!9

Such measures did not still the abiding hatred of Herod within the
wider Judaean population. Many Jews had been killed or enslaved in 37
B.c. when Sosius seized Jerusalem on his behalf. Herod’s origins, not
just as an Idumaean but as the son of a non-Jewish mother who is not
known to have converted, were held against him, especially since it is
possible that for some Jews, in this period as later, Jewish citizenship
was held to be passed down through the female line.” His interference in
the prestige of the high priesthood was resented, as was his insistence
that his unwilling subjects should forswear themselves by taking an oath
to him in 17 B.c. and probably again in ¢. 8 B.c.

It is also probable but not certain that the populace was heavily taxed
to pay for Herod’s grandiose expenditure and the huge reserves which he
accumulated.?! Herod may have enjoyed a considerable income from
hereditary estates in Idumaea, from confiscated land in Judaea, both
royal and private, and from letting out grazing land to the Nabataeans.
The right to collect taxes for Rome and to farm half the revenue of the
Cyprus copper-mines will have added considerably to his revenues. His
expenses will have been less if, as is probable but not certain, he did not
pay tribute to Rome after Actium. It is thus possible that the tax burden

19 On the administration under Herod, see Schalit 1969 (z 1206) 183-223.

2 There is much debate over the date when the inheritance of citizenship through the female
rather than male line was generally accepted by Jews. See Cohen 1985 (E 1101).

21 On the weight of Herod’s taxes, and the continuing debate about the imposition of Roman
taxes on the client kingdom, see Schalit 1969 (E 1206) 262-98; Gabba 1990 (z 1117).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

748 14d. JUDAEA

on Judaea was not excessive: emergency measures in famine conditions
in 25, 20 and 14 B.c. have no implications for the weight of normal
exactions. Perhaps his Jewish subjects objected to paying taxes of any
kind to a king whose legitimacy they questioned. Later Jewish literature
in antiquity depicted Herod as a monster.”

Herod had few weapons with which to ward off such hostility. Apart
from attempting to smother disaffection at an early stage by the use of a
secret police, his most blatant reaction was the building of fortresses
within the country for his own protection. The massive construction of
surviving parts of his palaces in Jerusalem, Masada and Herodium bears
witness to the importance of such defences.?3 It is probable that these
fortresses, like the military colonies planted mostly on the eastern edges
of his territory, were intended as much to control the subject population
as to fend off external foes. In Jerusalem a highly trained mercenary force
composed mainly of Gentiles and largely recruited from the Greek cities
in and near Palestine kept the peace; the Jews included in their number
were mostly Idumaeans and Babylonians, though it is not known
whether the omission of Judaeans was through their reluctance or
Herod’s insistence.

But Herod also took steps to woo his Jewish subjects. At least while in
Jerusalem he adhered to the main tenets of Judaism. His decision not to
advertise his own portrait on his coins was in deference to the biblical
prohibition on graven images. His avoidance of pork was the subject ofa
famous joke ascribed to Augustus: ‘I would rather be Herod’s pig than
his son.’25 Above all he spent lavishly on the embellishment of Jerusalem
and its Temple, creating amonument to the glory of his people as well as
himself. The building was tactfully left under the supervision of the
priests — except for the eagle, whose erection over the Temple door at
Herod’s command provoked violent opposition (see above, p. 741).

The extent of Herod’s commitment to such ‘double book-keeping’ —
presenting himself as Jewish to Jews, Greek to Gentiles — should not be
exaggerated; such an attitude was in fact more characteristic of his
grandson Agrippa I than of Herod himself. Herod did not hesitate to
use hellenistic titles on his coins or to welcome many Greek-educated
Gentiles to his Judaean court. Nevertheless he undoubtedly tried hard to
promote his Jewish credentials, even claiming rather ludicrously that he
was really descended from a line of Babylonian Jews.?? He prevented the
marriage of the Nabataean Syllaeus to his sister Salome when the former

2 b. Baba Bathra 3b—4a; b. Taanith 23a; Lev. Rab. 35:8; Num. Rab. 14:20.
23 See especially Yadin 1966 (E 1235) 40-156.

24 On Jewish levies in Herod’s army, see Schalit 1969 (E 1206) 167-83.

25 Macrob. Saf. 1.4.11, based on the play of the Greek words vids and ds.

26 For analysis of Herod’s rule in these terms, see Baumann 1983 (E 1091) 264.
2 Joseph. AJ xtv.9 (= Jacoby, FGrH 90 a F96).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE HERODS 749

refused to convert to Judaism, and he liked to present himself as the
protector of all Jews under Roman rule, wherever they might live.

Such bids for popularity seem to have failed to change Herod’s image
at least in Judaea. Much of the credit for rebuilding the Temple was
destroyed by the riots against the erection of the eagle above it. Josephus
writes that at Herod’s death the ‘notables of the kingdom’ had been shut
up in the hippodrome in Jericho under threat of execution; Herod is said
to have planned their demise to coincide with his to prevent unseemly
joy when he died.

Neither Archelaus nor Antipas achieved any more popularity than
their father. Philip, who did not rule over many Jews and, unlike his
brothers, did not use ‘Herod’ as a dynastic name, avoided evoking such
resentment, but the first Herodian to be accepted by at least part of the
Judaean populace as more or less a genuinely Jewish king was Agrippa I.
It is significant that Agrippa managed this not least by avoiding in
Judaea any public connexion with his grandfather, preferring to be
known as Agrippa rather than Herod; in his favour was his Hasmonaean
grandmother Mariamme. Both he and his son won some further support
by their championing of the Jewish cause at Rome when disturbances
broke out in Alexandria and Judaea under Roman governors,”8 but
neither ever won a really enthusiastic following in Jerusalem.

The Herods compensated for this uneasy relationship with their
Jewish subjects by seeking support elsewhere. They preserved excellent
relations with the gentile population of the Greek cities in and around
Palestine, increasing their number by various foundations, of which the
most important was the great port of Caesarea. Herod and his descen-
dants gave huge gifts to numerous Syrian cities, partly just to emphasize
the Hellenic culture of the Jewish dynasty. Herod made grand donations
also to cities and shrines in mainland Greece and Asia Minor. In Judaea
itself, however, the Greeks were kept under firm control as part of the
Herodian realm.

More important for the Herods themselves was their self-conception
as the most glorious of the petty dynasties which ruled the Near East in
the early Empire in friendly alliance with Rome and under her watchful
eye. Influence on this plane was encouraged by intermarriage between
Herod’s relatives and the families of other client kings from areas as far
afield as Nabataea, Emesa, Cilicia, Cappadocia and Africa.?9 Relations
with these dynasties were only strained when proximity encouraged
Herodian dreams of expansion; such dreams help to explain the

2% For Agrippa I and II in Rome, cf. Joseph. Aj xvitt.289-301; x1x.279, 288; xx.135. For
Agrippa II’s patronage of Josephus see Joseph. Vit. 362, 364-7; Ap. 1.51. For the rabbinic view, see
m.Bikk, 3: 4; #8. Sotab 7: 8.

2 For these relations, see Sullivan 1978 (E 1064).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

750 14d. JUDAEA

occasional hostility shown towards the Nabataeans, particularly in the
wars of 9 B.c. and A.D. 36.4

Good relations with the emperor were of overriding importance to all
the Herods. Cities were named in the emperor’s honour; Herod entitled
himself on official inscriptions ‘Friend of the Emperor’ and ‘Friend of
the Romans’; in about 8 B.c. he added to the oath of allegiance the name
of the emperor; in the non-Jewish cities he established the imperial cult
with great enthusiasm soon after Actium; in Jerusalem he began the
practice of a daily sacrifice in the Temple for the well-being of the
emperor and, less in accordance with Jewish custom, quadrennial games
in the emperor’s honour. Both Herod and his successors paid frequent
visits to the imperial court in Rome.

The Herods thus functioned as much on the international as on the
purely Judaean stage, intriguing for power in Rome as in Jerusalem. In
neither city were they entirely accepted. Their Judaism, strikingly
superficial though it seemed to Jews, distinguished them from the
Roman senators and emperors in whose company they were found: the
prospect that Berenice might marry the future emperor Titus caused
outrage among the latter’s associates.3! Not until the second century
A.D., when all their territorial rights had disappeared along with the
vestiges of their Judaism, did the descendants of Herod win full
acceptance in Roman society.*2

II. ROMAN ADMINISTRATION?>>

Direct Roman rule over Judaea began in A.D. 6 on the deposition of
Archelaus. There was probably no deeper cause than that announced in
public: Augustus’ personal dissatisfaction with the ethnarch’s immoder-
ate and brutal behaviour towards his subjects. Other explanations,
however, have been proposed and may be correct: Rome benefited
financially by the transfer of royal property such as the Engedi balsam
groves to the imperial fiscus; the tribute raised by Rome despite
provincial hostility was not small; the Judaean hill country had been held
by the Parthians from 4o to 37 B.c. and was of some, albeit slight,
strategic importance for the defence of the eastern Roman frontier; in

* On this uneasy coexistence, see Bowersock 1983 (E 99°) esp. pp. 50-3, 65-7.

4 Suet. Tit. 7; Dio rxv1.15.3~4; 18.1. See Crook 1951 (E 1106).

32 See Sullivan 1978 (£ 1064) 935-8 on C. Claudius Severus and other consular descendants of the
eastern client kings; Smallwood 1976 (£ 1212) 551, on C. Iulius Severus.

3 The history of Judaea from A.D. 6 to A.D. 70 is found in Joseph. BJ .117-v11 end; AJ xvin—
xx; Vit.; Philo, Leg. The emphasis in the three narratives by Josephus varies in accordance with
their different purposes, but they can usually be reconciled.

4 Joseph. AJ xvi1.342—-3; BJ u.111-13; Dio tv.27.6; cf. Smallwood 1976 (£ 1212) 117.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMAN ADMINISTRATION 751

general, Augustus seems to have assumed that the imposition of direct
rule in the place of client kings was desirable when appropriate.

Whatever the cause, direct rule proved to be Rome’s more or less
permanent solution to the squabbles of Herod’s descendants over
Judaea. Apart from the brief period (a.p. 41-4) when Agrippa I reigned
(see above, p. 745), the same kind of Roman administration remained in
force until A.D. 66, when a great rebellion led first to the establishment of
an independent Jewish state and then to the fall of that state in an orgy of
violence.

The decline towards catastrophe was gradual and probably intermit-
tent but the signs were evident from the beginning. Despite the
unpopularity of the deposed Archelaus, the first months under a Roman
governor already witnessed considerable unrest. The immediate cause of
discontent was the imposition of a provincial census under the super-
vision of the governor of Syria, P. Sulpicius Quirinius. It is not clear
whether the complaint was aimed at higher taxation or the notion of
being registered or the unpalatability of so blatant a sign of foreign
domination. The trouble was soon stilled, for the moment.

Despite this early evidence that the administration of Judaea would
not be easy, neither Augustus nor his successors seem to have taken great
pains in the selection of suitable governors. All those chosen were of
equestrian or lesser ranks; the province was too small to insult a senator
with its rule, especially since no legions were stationed there. The title
praefectus on an inscription set up by Pilate, governor ¢. A.D. 26 to 36,
shows the earliest governors to have exercised military authority;>5 the
term procurator used after Claudius, and by Josephus in discussing also
the earlier governors, reflects a change in terminology rather than
function. All governors owed their position to the direct patronage of
the emperor, to whom they also reported. All retained the military sus
gladis.

Nothing is recorded of the origins of the governors before A.D. 41,
and none is known to have progressed further in his career; a salutary
reminder of the insignificance of Judaea in Roman terms and also,
perhaps, of Josephus’ ignorance of events which preceded his own
recollection. Of the later procurators, the historian records more detail
of only three, whose appointment he evidently considered exceptional.
The emperor Claudius appointed in ¢. a.p. 46 the apostate Jew Tiberius
Iulius Alexander, who came froma leading Jewish family from Alexan-
dria; Claudius evidently hoped to assuage the Jews’ disappointment at
their loss of autonomy on the death of Agrippa I in a.p. 44, but, though
the success of this policy can no longer be judged since Iulius Alexander

35 Frova 1961 (B 232); cf. Weber 1971 (B 296).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

752 14d. JUDAEA

was probably still a powerful figure in Rome when Josephus wrote, it is
unlikely that the Jews were very enthusiastic at the prospect of rule by a
public apostate. Less well intentioned and probably more disastrous
was the appointment in ¢. A.D. 52 of the freedman Felix, brother of the
influential Pallas; both Tacitus and Josephus express disgust at his
elevation.37 Worst of all was the last procurator Gessius Florus (A.D. 64—
6) whose origins from Clazomenae inclined him fatally to sympathize
with the Greeks of the province against the Jews; he owed his position to
his wife’s friendship with Poppaea. Of the other procurators, ten or
eleven in number, little more than the name is known.

The extent to which the unrest engendered by the census in a.D. 6 was
continued in the years immediately following has been much debated.
Tacitus records a complaint in a.p. 17 against the weight of Roman
taxation but not the principle of its imposition; for the rest he asserts that
‘under Tiberius all was quiet’.*8 The disturbances surrounding the
crucifixion of Jesus are thus passed over by the Roman senator without
mention. Other disorders in the time of Pilate were also treated by the
Roman authorities as of less significance than with hindsight they
deserve: Josephus records how Pilate provoked a mass demonstration
against his introduction of legionary standards into Jerusalem and later
caused a storm of protest, quelled only with bloodshed, by sacrilegiously
using money taken from the Temple to build an aqueduct for the city;%°
another incident, mentioned by Philo alone, when Pilate was compelled
to withdraw from Jerusalem shields bearing the emperor’s name,
perhaps because the reference therein to the divine Augustus was seen as
idolatrous, may be identical with the episode involving the standards.”
Tiberius, ensconced on Capri, ignored such trivialities. Pilate lost his
office only after an even more appalling crime in which a crowd of
Samaritans was slaughtered in an eager search for the treasure said to be
hidden on their holy mountain of Gerizim.

These symptoms of unrest were entirely overshadowed for later
historians by the sudden, unexpected and climactic events of a.p. 40.41 A
complaint sent through the procurator of the city to the new emperor
Gaius in late a.p. 39 by the Gentile inhabitants of Jamnia, to the effect
that their Jewish neighbours had refused to allow them to set up altars
for his worship, elicited the response that a statue with the emperor’s
effigy must be set up’in the Temple in Jerusalem. The effect was
pandemonium: of the two detailed surviving accounts, that of the
contemporary Philo is preferable to Josephus’, but the very fact that the

% Burr 1955 (C 336). 37 Tac. Ann. xr1.54; Hist. v.9.3; cf. Joseph. AJ xx.182.
38 Tac. Aan. 1.42.5; Hist. v.9.2- 3 Joseph. BJ 1.169-77; AJ xvust.5 5-62.
© Philo, Leg. 38 (299-306).

41 Joseph. AJ xvitt.261—309; Philo, Leg. 188, 207-333; Tac. Hist. v.9.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMAN ADMINISTRATION 753

story of these events was treated almost as a dramatic myth by those, like
Josephus, who were children at the time is highly significant. Agrippa I
in Rome tried to dissuade his old friend, in Judaea the populace refused
to harvest (or, depending on the precise chronology, perhaps to sow)
their crops; Publius Petronius, the governas of Syria, to whom the task
of installing the statue had fallen, baulked at the consequences of so
grave an assault on the Jewish cult and prevaricated. Josephus and Philo
state that the people were prepared to die to prevent Gaius’ sacrilege, and
Tacitus adds that they were close to rebellion. According to Josephus,
Gaius repented his intention, at least temporarily, after Agrippa’s
intervention; but Philo states more plausibly that only the emperor’s
death in A.D. 41 forestalled calamity — and brought a remarkable change
in fortune with the advent of a glamorous Jewish king, Agrippa I, only
for this renaissance to be in turn abruptly terminated by his demise (see
above, p. 745).

The unhappy events of A.D. 44-66 need to be seen against this
background of the arbitrary imposition and removal of persecution, the
raising and dashing of hopes. A border conflict in a.p. 44 between the
Jewish inhabitants of Peraea and the citizens of Philadelphia was easily
crushed and agitation against the new procurator Cuspius Fadus (a.D.
44-¢. 46) for failing to return the high priestly garments to the Jews was
mostly confined to the ruling class, but the band urged by a messianic
prophet named Theudas to retire into the desert was apparently
reckoned more dangerous and suppressed by the execution of Theudas
himself. A period of comparative peace under Tiberius Iulius Alexander
(¢. A.D. 46-8) was followed by riots in Jerusalem under Ventidius
Cumanus (A.D. 48-c. 52) when one soldier displayed himself indecently
near the Temple and another burnt a copy of the Jewish Law during
retaliatory action against a Judaean village whose authorities had failed
to apprehend some brigands who had stolen goods from an imperial
slave. More serious intercommunal fighting was to lead to Cumanus’
exile: when a Galilean pilgrim was attacked by Samaritans while he was
on the way to Jerusalem, a mob which rushed north from the festival
celebrations caused such bloodshed before the procurator could control
the combatants that the legate of Syria sent all parties, including
Cumanus, to Rome, where they were duly punished.

Felix (¢. A.D. 52—¢. 60), who had probably already been sent to Samaria
to control the populace and help with the trial of Cumanus, proved no
better as the new governor. Brigandage in the countryside was matched
by urban terrorism in Jerusalem. Members of the ruling class began to
use gangs on the streets of the city. An Egyptian Jew led a large group
fired with eschatological hopes to Jerusalem from the Jordan, and they
were only dispersed by the attack of Roman cohorts.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

754 14d. JUDAEA

The followers of other visionaries suffered a similar fate under Porcius
Festus (¢. A.D. 60-2), and both banditry in the Judaean hills and violence
in Jerusalem were further stimulated by the venality or incompetence of
his successor Albinus (A.D. 62—4). But ‘the patience of the Jews lasted
until the procurator Gessius Florus’ (A.D. 64—6),‘? when their willing-
ness to accept Roman rule was finally put into question not by any of the
preceding unrest but the quite separate issue of the rights of the Jews of
Caesarea.

The Jews claimed Caesarea as their city because it had been founded
by Herod; the Greeks, more plausibly given the prominence of pagan
temples in the city from the start, claimed it as theirs. The intermittent
dispute was decided by Nero inc. a.p. 60 in favour of the Greeks, but the
Jews did not drop the issue, and in spring A.D. 66 intercommunal rioting
broke out more seriously than ever before. Florus, bribed by the Jews to
intervene, accepted the money but did nothing despite the increasingly
unhappy effects of the disorders on the Caesarean Jews. Such venality
aroused even more resentment when Florus compounded the Jews’
hostility by taking 17 talents from the Temple treasury; in this case the
action probably had more justification since the province had fallen
behind in tribute payments, but this did not diminish horror at the
sacrilege.

The antagonism thus aroused towards the procurator led quite rapidly
to the outbreak of rebellion in the early summer of A.D. 66. Some youths
lampooned Florus’ meanness; the governor marched to Jerusalem to
demand their surrender; the authorities refused to surrender the guilty;
Florus let his troops loose on the city as punishment, arraigning before
his tribunal even the richest Jerusalemites — Josephus claims that some
were equites — and crucifying some of them.*3

Despite the efforts of some of the Jerusalem ruling class it proved
impossible to restore order under the procurator’s aegis. Florus
attempted a public demonstration of the Jews’ submission by ordering
them to greet two cohorts sent to Jerusalem as reinforcements, but the
soldiers’ arrogance caused so much offence that rioting and further
bloodshed were the only outcome. The governor’s withdrawal to
Caesarea eased tension slightly and both Agrippa II and Berenice tried
hard to prevent further escalation of disaffection, but in vain: in May/
June A.D. 66 some young priests, led by the captain of the Temple
Eleazar son of Ananias, proclaimed defiance of Rome by halting the
sacrifices regularly offered up on behalf of the Roman emperor.

The theological justification for this action, that it was not right to
accept offerings from a Gentile, was exceptionally tenuous since this had

42 Tac. Hist. v.t0.1.
43 Joseph. BJ 11.301-8; for analysis of this episode, cf. Goodman 1985 (£ 1129).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMAN ADMINISTRATION 755

been the custom for centuries, and the ruling class of Jerusalem split on
the issue, the cautious advocating the restoration of the sacrifices
perhaps more on prudential than theological grounds. Fighting between
the different factions reached an intensity not known in the gang warfare
of previous years, and within a few days the viciousness increased still
further when brigands under a certain Menahem son of Judas attached
themselves to Eleazar’s faction: Eleazar’s father and uncle, the leaders of
the main faction trying to avoid war with Rome, were killed, and the
troops which had been sent by Agrippa to help quell the disturbances
were either brought onto the rebels’ side or expelled from the city; a
small contingent of Roman auxiliaries hoped similarly to escape with
their lives but were treacherously murdered by Eleazar’s followers.¥

Now that rebellion was irrevocable Jews in many of the cities around
Judaea rose against their Gentile neighbours, who in turn took advan-
tage of Rome’s blessing to plunder and kill the Jews. As in 4 B.c., A.D. 6
and A.D. 40 the task of restoring Roman control was entrusted to the
legate of Syria, and in Antioch Cestius Gallus gradually collected a large
force which included the Twelfth Legion (Fulminata), other legionaries,
and troops provided by allied kings including Agrippa.

It took until September for this force to reach Ptolemais. Cestius with
little opposition secured Galilee, presumably to protect his rear, and
ravaged some villages and small towns in the Judaean coastal plain,
perhaps in the hope that exemplary massacres would terrify the Jerusa-
lem rebels into submission. Josephus gives no details about events in
Jerusalem over the summer months, perhaps out of embarrassment at
the participation in rebellion of his own class, whom he later wished to
exculpate from responsibility for the revolt, but the Jews were clearly
not unprepared by October, when they confronted Cestius as his forces
emerged from the Bethhoron Pass and despoiled him of much baggage
even before he reached Jerusalem.

Cestius was impressed and daunted by the strength of this opposition.
He rapidly captured the northern suburbs but after a few days decided
that the city could not be taken that year; his main concern was perhaps
his lack of supplies and the problems of transporting reinforcements
through hostile hill territory. At any rate, he retreated to the coast in
incompetent disorder, losing many men and much equipment in the
Bethoron defile.

Whether or not the Jewish rebels had organized themselves coher-
ently before Cestius’ attack, they did so now. Josephus himself was
chosen as general of the rebel forces in Galilee, and Ananus son of
Ananus, who had briefly held the high priesthood in a.p. 62, was

“ Joseph. BJ 11.437, 449-56. For some of Agrippa’s troops joining the rebels, cf. BJ 11.430, 520.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

756 14d. JUDAEA

appointed joint commander-in-chief. On the Roman side Nero entrusted
the war in February a.p. 67 to Titus Flavius Vespasianus, with the rank
of /egatus, three legions (two from Syrian Antioch, one from Egypt),
auxiliary cohorts, cavalry and contingents from the client kingdoms.

By June a.p. 67 Vespasian was in Galilee where Josephus, lacking
proper troops and weapons, was reduced to defending hill-top for-
tresses. According to Josephus’ detailed report the Galileans seem to
have been less enthusiastic for revolt than their reputation as the most
warlike of men would suggest;*> Vespasian’s aim may have been less to
secure his flank than to instil terror in Jerusalem by the ruthless
treatment of the rebels, but if so the determined defence of Gamala after
mass executions in Tarichaeae proved that such tactics might backfire.46

Josephus himself had been captured in Jotapata before the fall of
Galilee after a siege of forty-seven days and, at any rate according to the
story as told later, had rapidly won Vespasian’s attention and leniency by
prophesying his elevation to the Principate.47 The historian’s place in
command of Galilee was taken by his arch-rival John son of Levi of
Gischala; but John too proved ineffective against siege and escaped to
Jerusalem, where he joined Ananus and his associates in late summer
A.D. 67.

Meanwhile in the capital city the populace was not happy at the
incompetence of the leadership which had permitted the loss of Galilee,
and dissatisfaction spread further when Vespasian began in spring A.D.
68 systematically to encircle the capital. Opposition to Ananus was
fuelled particularly by the peasants who, deprived of their homes,
flooded into the city, finding leaders among a group of well-born priests
who described themselves as Zealots, by which name they seem to have
claimed a special zeal for the Temple cult.48 These priests accused
Ananus’ faction of a lack of enthusiasm for the war. The charge of
treachery was probably not justified since Cestius’ failure had shown that
the rebels’ strength lay in the strong walls of Jerusalem, but it was
rendered plausible by the fact that many of Ananus’ associates, including
by now Josephus, had joined the Roman side. At any rate the Zealots
established themselves in opposition to Ananus’ government, barricad-
ing themselves inside the Temple. When they were joined in spring A.D.
68 first by the opportunist John of Gischala and then by a force of
Idumaeans, they proved sufficiently powerful to wrest control of the
whole city from Ananus, who was soon put to death.

45 Joseph. BJ 11.41—2.

4 The siege of Gamala is described at Joseph. BJ rv.11—53, 62-83. For the harsh treatment of
prisoners at Tarichaeae, see BJ 111.5 36-41.

47 Suet. Vesp. 5; Dio txvi.1.4; Joseph. BJ 111.399-407.

48 Cf. Joseph. BJ tv.160~1, where these rebels are said to have claimed that they were ‘zealous in
the cause of virtue’. ;

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMAN ADMINISTRATION 757

Josephus claims in his account of the war that from this moment the
Judaean state declined rapidly into savage civil war.49 His assertion has
often been believed but perhaps unwisely, for he himself had by now
joined the Roman side, and at the time of writing he wished to distance
himself and his friends from the defenders of Jerusalem whose intransi-
gence had caused the destruction of the Temple. Against this picture of
social and political disintegration is the evidence from Josephus’ own
narrative both of the continued presence in Jerusalem of some of the
ruling class and of the continuation of the public courts and the
municipal burial of paupers;°° furthermore, the issue of a fine silver
coinage and some bronze change by the Jerusalem authorities still in the
fourth year of the war, i.e. until the last months of the siege in A.D. 70,
suggests a quite stable state.5!

The efflorescence of this independent Jewish state from spring A.D. 68
to A.D. 70 was facilitated very largely by factors external to Judaea. In
June a.p. 68 Vespasian suddenly halted the subjugation of the country-
side because Nero’s death had ended his mandate as imperial legate for
the war. The renewed campaign in May/June A.p. 69 had just recovered
the territory subdued the previous year and completed the encirclement
of Jerusalem when in July Vespasian was proclaimed emperor and
Roman operations against the Jews again ceased.

With the enemy thus distracted the Judaean leaders indulged in
internecine struggle for control of the state. During a.p. 68 some of
those ousted from power by John and the Zealots left Jerusalem to join
an increasingly powerful figure in the countryside, Simon son of Gioras.
This Simon had led troops against the rearguard of Cestius Gallus in
autumn A.D. 66 but had been ousted from all influence by the deep
hostility of Ananus son of Ananus; only after Ananus’ death in early a.p.
68 did he take further part in the war. By spring A.D. 69 he had occupied
Hebron and was powerful enough to take Jerusalem with the help of the
Idumaean forces who had become disenchanted with John and the
Zealots. His regime retained control of all the city except the Temple
until Roman forces finally arrived outside the walls.

Vespasian, now princeps, appointed his son Titus to prosecute the war,
and the new commander reached Jerusalem in March A.D. 70 with the aid
of an extra legion. Within the city the Zealots held the inner Temple,
John of Gischala its outer precincts and Simon the rest of the city, but
within a few days of Titus’ arrival they united against him. Titus’
circumvallation, intended to cut off supplies to the defenders, was
completed ina few weeks, but the city was captured not by famine but by

49 Joseph. BJ tv.318, 355-6, 365.
50 Joseph. BJ rv.334~44; v.568; v1.113. This point is argued more fully in Goodman 1987 (E 1130)
176-97. 51 Kadman 1960 (B 328) 78.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

758 14d. JUDAEA

a direct assault in which Titus demonstrated unusual disregard for
casualties among his own soldiers.

The reasons for Titus’ zeal in the prosecution of the siege again lay
outside Judaea: he and his father needed a rapid victory to serve as a
propaganda base for the new Flavian dynasty. By May the outer (third)
wall was in Roman hands. In June the Antonia fortress fell and siege was
laid to the Temple; the daily sacrifices ceased and famine began. On 10
Ab (August) a.p. 70 the Temple was destroyed, probably, despite
Josephus’ denial, on Titus’ express order.52

Pockets of resistance in the upper city were slowly mopped up during
September. The Herodian fortresses held out longer; Masada, the last
stronghold, fell only in a.p. 73 or 74 with the suicide of the defenders: the
surviving ramp confirms Josephus’ account of the efforts of the Romans
to secure complete pacification.*3 Judaea was put under a praetorian
legate with a legion permanently stationed at Jerusalem. A veteran
colony was established at Emmaus.

The Temple was not rebuilt and its treasures were carried in triumph
to Rome, as the reliefs on the Arch of Titus record. Of the rebel leaders
Simon was executed on the Capitol, and the others were either impri-
soned or enslaved. No attempt was made to reconstitute Judaean
society: the province’s desolation was deliberately stressed by Flavianic
propaganda, especially on imperial coins.54 Only the religion of the Jews
survived, and that too underwent great adaptation as the significance of
the Temple’s destruction was gradually interpreted during the late first
and second centuries A.D. anda new understanding forged of the relation
of God to his people. (See CAH xr’).

Such disasters and so much bloodshed must be accounted evidence of
a failure in Roman provincial administration. The causes of such failure
were undoubtedly complex; nor can Josephus, the main guide to the
facts, be accounted of much use in the ascriptions of blame in which his
prejudices are blatant. Nonetheless some causes specific to Judaea can
profitably be pointed out.

Both Josephus and Tacitus accused the procurators of Judaea of
incompetence and deliberate wickedness,55 and a charge of at least
tactlessness in the handling of Jewish religious susceptibilities is hard to
refute. On the other hand failure to comprehend the intricate regulations
of Judaism was particularly venial in the light of the variety of religious
attitudes and authorities in Judaea in this period (see below, p. 762).

On the Jewish side Josephus attempted to shift all blame onto rebels

52 Joseph. BJ vi.254-G6; contra, Sulp. Severus, Chron. 11.30.6-7. For arguments supporting
Josephus’ defence of Titus, see Rajak 1983 (B 147) 206-11.

53 Joseph. BJ vit.252, 275, 304-406; Yadin 1966 (E 1235).

3 BMCRE 11 nos. 115-18. 55 Cf. Joseph. AJ xx.25 3-8; Tac. Hist. v.10.1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROMAN ADMINISTRATION 759

from the poorer classes, attempting to portray the rich as loyal subjects
of Rome despite the involvement of many of them in the war. According
to his account the nation was destabilized by bandits in the countryside
and urban terrorists in Jerusalem, and the war was a direct result of their
wicked acts.*

These terrorists, described as sicarii or dagger-men because they used
short daggers hidden beneath their cloaks before escaping in the pilgrim
crowds, first appeared in Jerusalem in the early fifties a.p. when they
murdered the ex-High Priest Jonathan son of Ananus. At whose
instigation they operated was unclear to Josephus, who makes two
different suggestions in his two accounts of this assassination;>” such
uncertainty was a natural corollary of their underhand methods. It is
often assumed that all their terrorism was dedicated to the overthrow of
Roman rule and of the rich whose power derived from Rome: not only
did Josephus explicitly blame the sicarii in one passage for the outbreak
of the war,5® but two of their leaders in A.D. 66 and in A.D. 73 were
descendants of the founder of the anarchist Fourth Philosophy, Judas
the Galilean (see below, p. 761). Against such a view, however, is
Josephus’ claim that the sicarii fought on behalf of Roman governors
when paid sufficiently well.5° These thugs were perhaps available to all
for hire: hence their use in A.D. 62 to kidnap the secretary of the future
instigator of the revolt, Eleazar son of Ananias, in order to blackmail
Eleazar’s father.© In the war itself the sicarii were strikingly quiescent:
Menahem son of Judas seized Masada from its Roman garrison at the
very start, but, arriving in Jerusalem possibly only after revolt was
already in train,®! he was killed with the dispersal of his followers within
days; for the rest of the war, the sicarii seem to have lived in isolation on
Masada, profiting from the opportunities for brigandage in the disorder
of the countryside, refusing even to help Simon son of Gioras in his
successful bid for supreme power in the capital.

Other factors are less stressed by Josephus. The riots and massacres in
cities of mixed Jewish and gentile occupation near Palestine in a.D. 66
were symptomatic of an intermittent hatred whose origins probably
went back to the Hasmonaean period. Most of the auxiliary forces used
against the Jews were volunteers from these cities. Their antagonism
was fuelled and reinforced by the cultural divide which hindered
intermarriage and all except the most superficial social contact. Within
Judaea the widening of class divisions, for which there is much evidence

56 Cf. Bilde 1979 (E 1094). 587 Joseph. BJ 11.254-7; AJ xx.162-6.

58 Joseph. BJ vit.25 3-8, 262. 3% Joseph. AJ xx.163, 255. © Joseph. AJ xx.208—10.

61 Some take émdverow at Joseph. BJ 11.434 to indicate that Menahem had been present in
Jerusalem earlier in the revolt. This passage contains a doublet of BJ 11.408 about the seizure of

Masada, which suggests that Josephus, who was hidden in the Temple throughout those exciting
times (Vif. 21), was confused about their chronology.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

760 14d. JUDAEA

(see below, p. 769), embittered the poor, especially since biblical law
through the (now disregarded) institution of the Jubilee prohibited the
accumulation of landed wealth over generations; but although the rich
in normal times sided with Rome and class hostility could thus be
expressed by rebellion, in a.p. 66—70 many of the wealthy also joined in
the revolt.

This transfer of allegiance by the ruling class was itself a cause as well
as a consequence of the outbreak of war. The ruling class was expected to
help the governor in the suppression of disorder in the province, and
when they proved incapable of doing so, the procurators tended to treat
them as if they were themselves implicated: in ¢. a.p. 52 the High Priest
and some of his predecessors were held responsible by Cumanus for the
attack on Samaritans by a Jewish crowd which, according to Josephus,
they tried in vain to check (see above, p. 753).® This suspicion reached a
peak with the crucifixion of upper-class Jews by Florus in Jerusalem in
A.D. 66.% It was fuelled by the resort to violence by some of the ruling
class in the pursuit of power on their own behalf: by a.p. 63—4 there were
constant clashes on the streets of Jerusalem between rival gangs hurling
stones and insults, led by incumbent and past High Priests as well as by
other members of the ruling class, including relatives of Herod named
Saul and Costobar.®5 These rivalries, which resorted on occasion also to
kidnap, were not directly aimed against Rome, but they fatally weakened
the ability of Judaean leaders to stand up to unsympathetic procurators.

The struggle within Jewish society continued inside the independent
Jewish state of a.D. 66 to 70. With the raising of the stakes, the methods
used by the factions became closer to outright warfare; their rivalries
struck even the outside observer Tacitus.® It is possible that these
factions represented different ideologies, sects, classes or areas of origin,
but since both John of Gischala and Simon son of Gioras included Jews
of all classes and origin among their followers and Josephus’ vitupera-
tive rhetoric about the disreputable origins of his opponents is hardly to
be trusted, reconstructions of such parties by modern historians are
necessarily speculative. It should be noted that the slogans on the coins
issued by the different factions when in control of Jerusalem do not differ
materially. It is possible that the struggle of the faction leaders was solely
for power, while their supporters were mercenaries, often former
bandits, culled from the dispossessed peasantry; in the opposition to
Rome all the factions united in an appeal to the nationalist sentiments of
the general population.

There is only little evidence for the common assertion that the prime
causes both of the rebellion and of this civil strife were explicit religious

8 Lev. 25:9-I10. 63 Joseph. BJ 11.243; AJ xx.131. Joseph. BJ 11.308.
65 Joseph. Aj xx.213—-14. & Tac. Hist. v.12.3-4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JEWISH RELIGION 761

beliefs. Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all mention widespread belief in
an oracle that a man from Judaea would become ruler of the world.
Josephus states that the initiation by the rebel leader Judas the Galilean
in A.D. 6 of the new (‘Fourth’) philosophy, according to which Jews
should obey no ruler except God, was responsible for the war;®’ but this
may refer to divine displeasure at alleged unauthorized religious inno-
vation as much as to the arousal of anti-Roman sentiment by this
anarchist doctrine, and the explicit connexion made by Josephus
between the Fourth Philosophy and the sicarii may be based on little
more than the familial descent of their leaders from Judas.68 Most Jews
probably saw no religious impediment to living in peace under Roman
rule as they had under Persians and Greeks: despite the desecration of the
Temple by Pompey and in 4 B.c. by the procurator Sabinus, and despite
Gaius’ crazy schemes in A.D. 40, there was no reason in A.D. 66 for Jews
to believe that their religion was under threat by a suzerain which had
long tolerated their cult.

Nonetheless it is striking that most disturbances which required
forcible suppression were sparked off by religious issues and that many
occurred at the pilgrim festivals where the religious atmosphere was
highly charged. One reason may be the lack of a clear all-embracing
orthodoxy in first-century Judaism (see below, p. 762): behaviour which
to some Jews, including perhaps the governor’s advisers, seemed
permissible, was anathema to others. More pervasive was the general
hostility to the Romans simply because they were Gentile: in a society
where holiness was achieved through separation from impurity and non-
Jews were believed to be in a vague sense a source of pollution (see
below, p. 765), the liberation of the land from foreign rule might well
seem desirable. But it must be stressed that the legends on the coins
issued by the rebels to put forward their public message bear no such
overt religious meaning, although the objects illustrated were evidently
designed to emphasize the centrality of the Temple worship; they
proclaim the freedom of Jerusalem and Israel.

III. JEWISH RELIGION AND SOCIETY

1. Judaea™

Much of the evidence for Judaean society derives from sources which are
only dubiously reliable since they were written for theological rather
67 Joseph. BJ 11.118-19; AJ xvit.24-4. 6 Joseph. BJ vi1.25 3-9.
6 Kadman 1960 (B 328).
7 The main sources, apart from the gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and the rabbinic texts, are

Joseph. Ap.; the Dead Sea scrolls written and preserved by the sectarian community in Qumran
(translation in Vermes 1987 (£ 1231)); and the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha preserved by the

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

762 14d. JUDAEA

than historical purposes and were composed either much later than the
first century A.D. (the rabbinic texts, i.e. Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmuds and
midrashim) ox outside Palestine (most, and possibly all, of the New
Testament material). The apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, which survive
entirely through the Christian tradition and mostly in Greek or transla-
tions from the Greek, can rarely be demonstrated with certainty to be
Jewish or to originate from Judaea. The contemporary writings of
Josephus, particularly contra Apionem, are correspondingly important,
but even here the author may have provided a distorted picture in order
to please his intended Greek audience. Much light has been shed by
excavation of settlements at Qumran and the parallel site at En el-
Ghuweir and by the Dead Sea scrolls found in the caves above the former
site; lest the sectarian and therefore non-typical nature of this contem-
porary evidence be overplayed, recent discoveries in the Upper City of
Jerusalem close to the Temple area and elsewhere in Judaea have
confirmed that some at least of the religious and cultural preoccupations
of the people at Qumran were widely shared.7!

(a) Religion No single all-embracing set of systematic religious dogmas
enjoyed universal assent in first-century Judaea any more than elsewhere
in the Roman world in this period. A great variety of belief and practice
was tolerated within the accepted confines of Judaism. Apostasy was
possible only by deliberate denial of all ancestral customs. The diversity
of acceptable doctrine is most clearly observed in the development in the
hellenistic period of distinct sects: the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes,
whose origins and tenets have been discussed in C_AH 1x2, 299-309,
were all also full members of the wider Jewish religious community.
Most Jews did not belong to any sect or (in Josephus’ terminology)
philosophy, for worship was a matter not of belief but of practice. None
the less a central core of dogmas most of which were common to all Jews
can be defined. Prime among these is devotion to monotheism and to the
Jewish law enshrined in the Pentateuch, the Torah. The exact require-
ments of the Torah were much discussed, to the extent that interpre-
tation of the text became in itself an important mode of worship,

Christian Church along with but outside the canonical books of the Old Testament (translations in
Charles 1913 (B 25); a much larger but not fully reliable collection in Charlesworth 1983-5 (B 26); a
smaller selection in Sparks 1984 (E 1214)). Of the rabbinic texts, the Mishnah and Tosefta, both
edited in the early to middle third century a.p., deserve more respect as evidence for Judaism in the
first century A.D. than the Palestinian Talmud (compiled ¢. a.D. 400) or the Babylonian Talmud
(compiled ¢. a.p. 500). The compilations of biblical commentaries (midrashim) are hard to date, but
some of the material at least in Mechilta, Sifra and Sifre is likely to have originated in the second
century A.D. or before. For the rabbinic sources, see Stemberger 1992 (E 1215A); more briefly,
Schirer 1973 (E 1207) 1 68-118.

71 On the excavations at Qumran, see de Vaux 1973 (E 1229); on En el-Ghuweir, see Bar-Adon
1977 (E 1085); on discoveries in Jerusalem, Avigad 1984 (E 1080).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JEWISH RELIGION 763

divergence on the correct exegetic method constituting one of the
defining characteristics of the various sects. The whole adult male
community was required to meet at least once a week in synagogues to
hear and learn about the Torah; this was the main and perhaps the sole
function of synagogues in Palestine in this period, for the scarcity of
clearly identified buildings from the first century A.D. or before suggests
that, unlike in the diaspora (see below, p. 777), Judaean synagogues in
this period were not yet treated as sacred places.” Understanding of the
Torah was expedited by translation into the vernacular and by detailed
interpretation of the implications as well as the plain meaning of the text.

Most Jews also acknowledged the paramount importance of the
Temple in Jerusalem, where a highly professional hereditary priesthood
administered the minutely organized sacrificial service with scrupulous
ceremonial. Twenty-four groups of priests served in turn. Public and
private offerings were made in a state of exceptional purity; the ordinary
people meanwhile stood outside in the courtyard, while the Levites, a
clearly defined caste of less prestigious Temple servants, sang psalms.
The architecture of the sanctuary enhanced its function as the centre of
purity: the grand colonnade built by Herod surrounded a great court-
yard into which all were permitted to enter; that courtyard enclosed
entirely a smaller court (the Court of the Women), through which it was
necessary to pass to reach the Court of the Israelites; enclosed by the
latter court lay the Court of the Priests, who alone could enter the
sanctuary itself; beyond the reach of all except the High Priest on the Day
of Atonement lay the Holy of Holies, the purest place of all. While the
sacrifices continued divine approval would ensure rain, harvests and
prosperity; their cessation in A.D. 70 was seen at the time as calamitous”3
and led to the development in coming centuries of more than one novel
and distinctive Jewish theology (see C_AH x1’).

Of those few Jews known to have dissented from the high value
placed by their fellows on worship in the Jerusalem Temple, the
adherents of the Dead Sea sect are striking. Whatever the original reason
for their treatment of the priests in Jerusalem as sinners whose sacrifices
were invalid (see CAH 1x?, 301—4), it was reinforced by their adoption of
a lunisolar calendar different from the lunar calendar used by most Jews,
which ensured that, in their eyes, the priests celebrated the festivals on
the wrong days. Any such calendaric infringement was seriously
regarded by all Jews: pagans regarded Jews as fanatical in the devotion
to their Sabbath rest which even occasionally (though probably never
normally) led them to die rather than fight on the sacred day, and

7 Buildings dating before a.p. 70 have been identified as synagogues at Masada, Herodium and
Gamala, alchough none of these identifications is beyond dispute. Cf. Levine 1981 (£ 1168).
3 Joseph. BJ v1.94.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

764 14d. JUDAEA

festivals, on which no travel or work was allowed, were treated with
only slightly less rigour. Indeed the observance of one festival, the Day
of Atonement, on which Jews fasted in repentance for sins, was
considered as even more important than the Sabbath.

The significance attributed to the Torah and the Temple and the strict
observance of personal restrictions on the Sabbath and festivals were
characteristics of Judaism inherited from Persian and early-hellenistic
times when the last books of the Hebrew bible were still being
composed. Less pervasive but, perhaps because of their novelty, well
attested in the sources are the new elements introduced in the last
centuries B.c. and in the Roman period.

One such new development was the evolution of distinct theologies
by the three major sects, the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes; all three
have been discussed in detail in CAH 1x2. So far as is known, neither of
the two latter groups underwent any great shift in ideology, membership
or political significance during the period covered by the present
volume; the identity of the Essenes with the sectarians who produced the
Dead Sea scrolls, and of the latter with the inhabitants of the settlement
at Qumran, is likely but not certain.

Much more evidence survives about the Pharisees in the first century
A.D. The authors of the gospels, particularly that of Matthew, depicted
the Pharisees as opponents of Jesus and subjected them to a fierce
polemic. Josephus showed a particular interest in them, claiming to be of
their number, as did St Paul.”4 The rabbis of the second century A.D. saw
some of the Pharisees as their spiritual forbears: thus the family of Hillel,
a Babylonian Jew who came to Jerusalem under Herod and founded a
dynasty of teachers including Paul’s instructor Gamaliel, are described
by Josephus and the New Testament as Pharisees but by Judah the
Patriarch, Hillel’s long-distant descendant who compiled the Mishnah in
¢. A.D. 200, as rabbinic sages.

The different pictures of the Pharisees in these sources cannot be
satisfactorily reconciled. The teachings specifically attributed by later
rabbis to named authorities who taught before a.p. 7o concern to a large
extent the intricate laws governing physical purity and the tithing of
foodstuffs, and it has been argued that such matters constituted the prime
or sole interests of first-century Pharisees; but it is also possible that such
concerns were confined to a small group within the Pharisaic movement
— the later rabbis described those individuals particularly zealous about
such matters as Aaverim (‘fellows’). As to the other characteristic
teachings of the Pharisees, of which the existence can reasonably be
postulated, it is impossible to be certain how many of the ethical and

™ Joseph. Vit. 12; Phil. 3:5.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JEWISH RELIGION 765

religious ideas presupposed by the rabbis after A.D. 7o should be
attributed to the Pharisees before that date.

Most of the leading Torah scholars of this period mentioned in later
rabbinic writings were probably Pharisees. According to the rabbis, two
distinct schools (‘Houses’) emerged in the first century A.D., one
constituted of the followers of Hillel, the other of Shammai; both these
teachers lived in the time of Herod. Later tradition depicted the
controversies between the Houses as fierce, but the issues mentioned as
under dispute are mostly quite trivial and presuppose wide areas of
agreement.

The extent of the wider influence of the Pharisees in the first century is
also uncertain. The rabbis assumed that their forbears, like themselves,
were the natural leaders of the nation, and Josephus, in describing the
Pharisees of the Hasmonaean period, attributed to them great authority
over the masses. But the Pharisees are not ascribed a prominent role as a
group in Josephus’ detailed narrative of the politics of Judaea in the first
century A.D.; if they had acted as a political faction in the Hasmonaean
state, it would appear that they had lost this role in the Herodian period
or soon after. In any case, the number of Pharisees was probably never
great — the only figure mentioned by an ancient writer is the ‘more than
6,000’ who, according to Josephus, refused to take an oath in support of
Herod. Their influence in religious matters spread beyond their imme-
diate circle, partly because in their interpretation of the Torah they often
took account of popular customs.75

A more widespread development than the emergence of distinct
philosophies was a concern by Jews for physical purity in a general sense.
Both purity as a metaphor for holiness and pollution standing for sin are
frequently found in the language of the Hebrew bible, but such usage
gained added significance in the post-biblical period as a symbol of the
separation of Jews from Gentiles. This tendency was expressed in an
interest in what entered the body as sustenance and in bodily excretions,
going well beyond the biblical definitions of the limited sources of
uncleanness which debarred priests from the sanctuary. Not only were
Jews renowned among outsiders for scrupulous observance of the
dietary prohibitions listed in Leviticus but,” probably in late hellenistic
times, they also adopted further taboos which lacked any obvious
biblical base, including the avoidance of Gentile milk, bread, wine and
olive oil. Later rabbinic tradition, aware of the anti-Gentile tendency in

18 Joseph. BJ 11.162—3; AJ xi11.171—3,288,294,297-8, XVII.41, XVIII.12—17; Vit. 2, 191. On the
rabbinic texts, see Neusner 1971 (E 1184). On the extent of the Pharisees’ influence, see Neusner,
Politics to Piety (Leiden, 1971) and the summary of the arguments in Goodblatt 1989 (z 1123).

16 Jews’ avoidance of pork was particularly notorious, cf. Joseph. Ap. 1.137; Plut. Quest. conv,
1v.4-6.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

766 14d, JUDAEA

these customs, ascribed them, probably wrongly, to the eighteen anti-
Roman decrees said to have been agreed by the Houses of Hillel and
Shammai at the start of the Great Revolt.”’ Finds of ritual baths in a
number of early-Roman Palestinian sites suggest that total immersion
was a widespread practice, at least among those believed most suscept-
ible to pollution such as menstruating women.

The symbolism of purity was elaborated in the idiosyncratic theolo-
gies of the Dead Sea sect, for whom the consumption of meals in purity
was a central rite, and of the Aaverim. John the Baptist proclaimed
forgiveness of sins through the waters of the Jordan. The importance of
seeking to preserve physical purity may have been strengthened,
psychologically if not theologically, by the notion, according to the
gospels deeply embedded in Jewish society, that sickness often derived
from contamination by external demons whose expulsion from the body
could bring a return to health.

The avoidance of pollution occasionally led to asceticism which had
its roots in the conduct of some of the biblical prophets. The austere
surroundings of the Qumran sect were probably believed to be intrinsi-
cally desirable. The ascetic Bannus whom Josephus claims to have joined
in the Judaean desert was admired for his avoidance of everything
beyond necessities.”2 John the Baptist won fame by refusing to use
manufactured food or clothes; it is not clear whether his denial of
comfort or achievement of purity was perceived as more praiseworthy.
Nonetheless asceticism was not widespread in contrast to the early
Christian church. For most Jews fasts were restricted to times of such
emergencies as drought.”

There were at least three other significant theological innovations in
the religion of first-century A.D. Judaean Jews, but neither the extent nor
the depth of their influence can be determined with certainty. Some Jews
began to believe in a life after death; some lived in confident expectation
of the Messiah; some tried to adopt Greek philosophical explanations of
the world while retaining loyalty to the Torah.

Belief in a life after death was certainly a novelty in the hellenistic
period, for no Jewish text before the Book of Daniel (12:2), which was
redacted to its final form in the second century B.c., unambiguously
refers to such a notion. Since in the first century A.D. the issue was still
fiercely debated by the Pharisees and Sadducees and extant texts are
unclear when, how and with what accoutrements this after-life would
take place, this hope was perhaps not an important element in religious
consciousness. Mourning practices continued to assume the unalloyed
grief of the deceased’s relatives. The introduction of secondary burial in

7 m.A.Z. 2: 3, 6; ef. on the ban on use of gentile oil, Joseph. BJ 1.591-2; AJ xt1.120.
78 Joseph. Vit. 11. 79 Cf. the tractate Taanith (‘Fasts’) in the Mishnah.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JEWISH RELIGION 767

stone ossuaries after the flesh had rotted is more likely to reflect a desire
for purity than the after-life; the practice was confined in the Jerusalem
area and parts of the Judaean countryside to the late first century B.c. and
the first century A.p.8

The importance of messianic beliefs in first century A.D. Judaea may
have been exaggerated by the Christian tradition through which most of
the literary texts of the period survive but some Jews at least expected
that a Messiah (however defined) would eventually appear, accompanied
by a radical reorganization and judgment of the world.®! There was no
agreement about the nature of the new world: the messianic age depicted
in the Dead Sea scrolls differs markedly from that in other texts and no
group developed any precise doctrine on the subject. It is impossible to
know how many Jews would accept all of this composite picture which
can be created only by amalgamation of a number of texts but it is likely
that many would subscribe to at least part of it: a final ordeal and
confusion would lead to Elijah, who would come as precursor to the
Messiah; this latter would be assaulted by Gentile powers but, proving
victorious, would renew Jerusalem, gathering the dispersed to enjoy the
kingdom of glory in the holy land; in a new heaven and earth the dead
would be resurrected to face the last judgment and assignation either to
bliss or to damnation for eternity. The role of Israel was always seen as
central but the new age was frequently taken to have universal
application.

The precise nature of the Messiah himself was also a matter for
speculation. The concept as expressed in the Hebrew bible involved a
king of the line of David, but at Qumran a second Messiah of priestly
stock was envisaged; the notion of a suffering Messiah was in this period
uncommon and perhaps unknown outside the early Christian commun-
ity. The practical consequence of such messianic beliefs was often
political quietism since it might be felt impious to force the divine
timetable; it is thus debated whether such doctrines were a major element
in any of the disturbances preceding the revolt of a.D. 66.

The extent to which further changes in the theology of Judaean Jews
were occasioned by adaptation of hellenistic religious ideas cannot be
clearly determined since many intertestamental texts which now survive
only in Greek cannot be certainly assigned either to Judaea or to the
diaspora (see above, p. 762). Folk memories of the events preceding the
Maccabean revolt (see CAH viii?, 346-50) may have made conscious

® On ossuary burial see Hachlili and Killebrew 1983 (2 1132); Rahmani 1986 (£ 1192). On the
debate over life after death, cf. Acts 23:6—8.

81 Discussions of messianism in Klausner 1956 (£ 1158); Schiirer 1979 (E 1207) 11 488-554;
Neusner, Green and Frerichs 1987 (E 1185).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

768 14d. JUDAEA

borrowing rare, but such Greek notions as the immortality of the soul
divorced from the body were held for instance even by the Essenes.®2

(b) Society No rigid division can readily be drawn between Judaean
religion and Judaean society, for religion invaded all aspects of life. Thus
the most important factor in the development of, and growth of tensions
within, Judaean society in the first centuries B.c. and A.p. was the
economic role of the Jerusalem Temple. The hills of Judaea, as of
Samaria and Galilee, were only moderately fertile: vines and olives
flourished but the grain grown in the valleys sufficed only for a moderate
population. The much greater productivity of the coastal plain was
enjoyed by the inhabitants, mostly non-Jewish, of the coastal cities,
while the luxuriant fruit crops of the Jordan rift valley, especially by the
Lake of Tiberias, rarely benefited the Jews in Judaea. The balsam groves
of En Gedi, the richest natural resource of all, were first a royal and then
an imperial monopoly.

The agrarian economy of Judaea thus could not by itself support a city
of the size and magnificence of Jerusalem, which Pliny the Elder
described as ‘by far the most illustrious of the cities of the Orient’.83 Nor
could agricultural wealth alone have paid for the multifarious imports
and impressive expenditure of the rich inhabitants of Jerusalem whose
houses have been revealed by recent excavations. The Judaean economy
was fuelled by a constant influx of wealth brought to the Temple both by
Jews and by others from all over the Mediterranean and the Near East.
This wealth percolated into society through the spending power of the
priests, the provision of employment in the beautification of the
sanctuary, and the influx of pilgrims who required service industries for
their comfort. The splendour thus acquired by Jerusalem was all the
more remarkable in contrast to the rustic poverty of its hinterland.

The evidence for such poverty is extensive. The prevalence of the debt
burden which afflicted the poor is clear from the attempt by the rebels in
A.D. 66 to persuade debtors to join them by burning the debt archives in
Jerusalem;* apart from the natural effect on small farmers of bad
harvests, an important cause was probably investment by the rich of
surplus wealth in loans when there was insufficient land to purchase: a
legal innovation, the prosbul, enabled the poor anxious for loans to waive
the right to the cancellation of debts every seven years which was
enshrined in Deuteronomy,® while the offer of land as security made
such loans attractive to the prosperous. Problems were further exacer-

82 Joseph. AJ xvit.18; BJ 11.154. The extent of hellenization in religious ideas is emphasized by
Hengel 1974 (E 1135) and 1989 (£ 1137); contrast Millar 1978 (£ 1177).

83 Pliny, HN v.14. For the excavations, see Avigad 1984 (£ 1080). See the discussion in Goodman
1987 (E1130) 51-73. % Joseph. BJ 11.427.

8 Deut. 15:1-2. On the prosbul, see a. Shebi. 10: 6, 9. On the whole debt problem, see Goodman
1982 (E 1127).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JEWISH RELIGION 769

bated by overpopulation, of which a main cause must have been the
common unwillingness of Jews on religious grounds to practise contra-
ception, abortion or infanticide. Surplus children were more likely to
survive in Jewish society than other rural economies because Jewish
concepts of charity required the rich to provide food and shelter up to a
(very low) minimum standard to all who seemed to be in need.

Conflict between rich and poor took different forms in the town and in
the countryside; since before A.D. 66 the rich were often identified with
the Roman suzerain, class and political motives were sometimes mingled
in the struggle. According to Josephus rural violence became endemic in
the late fifties A.p.% Bandits found refuge on the hill-tops and in artificial
caves; many such caves have been discovered, though some may have
been dug out of the limestone only during the Bar Kochba revolt in a.p.
132-5.87 Such places of concealment sufficed for the brigands to escape
the attention of the small forces of the Roman governor; the awareness
of their presence by the local peasant population may have been of less
concern since their attitude seems sometimes to have been sympathetic
or at least not hostile.88

In Jerusalem the poor formed an urban proletariat of a size rarely
found in this period outside the city of Rome. They were attracted by
hopes of charity or of employment either on such public works as the
building of the Temple or on private projects for the richer families of
the city. Their numbers and volatility are evident from the account by
Josephus of the consternation of the city’s leaders when, on the
completion of the Temple in ¢. A.D. 64, 18,000 were left unemployed
without the support of a regular wage.®°

Resentment at economic disparities was not apparently channelled
into direct class warfare partly because social identification of individuals
in terms of their property ownership, which was natural in Greek and
Roman society, was less obvious among Jews, for whom the possession
of wealth, though considered only in a few marginal religious groups
such as the Essenes as positively undesirable, was rarely seen as in itself a
criterion for status: the rich in Judaea, apart from the Herods, did not
practise evergetism.”

Jewish society in fact lacked the clear social hierarchy which marked
contemporary Rome; it is probably a mistake to treat the religious sects
as important social groupings or to identify their interests with those of
particular economic classes. There was probably general agreement

8 Joseph. BJ 11.264; AJ xx.172.

57 Kloner 1983 (£ 1159); Kloner and Tepper 1987 (E 1160).

58 On complicity of locals with brigands, see Joseph. BJ 11.253; AJ xx.121; cf. Horsley 1979 (E
1141). 89 Joseph. AJ xx.219.

% Class warfare is emphasized by Kreissig 1970 (E 1166). On the different criteria for status in
Jewish compared to Greek or Roman society, see Goodman 1987 (E 1130) 109-33.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

770 14d. JUDAEA

about the low social and religious status of Gentiles and slaves. There
was consensus too among men about the position of women, who were
generally excluded from positions of influence, although royal prin-
cesses were excepted from this rule and the introduction of the ketubah
(marriage contract), which guaranteed rights and money to wives on
divorce or widowhood, gave richer women some freedom in the control
of property. The extensive financial dealings of a rich widow called
Babatha have been revealed by the chance survival of her private
documents in the cave in the Judaean desert where she perished during
the revolt of a.p. 132—5.9! But for the adult male Jewish population the
variety of overlapping and competing statuses and the lack of a definitive
authority able to mediate between them contributed not a little to the
dissolution of the social order.

High priority was given to genealogy, even though most Jews, apart
from priests, were probably unable to trace their ancestry more than five
generations. Men used their patronymics after their own name. Dynas-
ties preserving family pre-eminence can be found among the Pharisees
and the sicarii as well as the royal houses. Lack of longstanding Jewish
origins was held against the Idumaeans (see above, p. 739) despite the
religious injunction to treat proselytes as full members of the community
in all matters except marriage into priestly families. Josephus boasted of
his Hasmonaean ancestors,?? Saul and Costobar of their link to Herod
(see above, p. 760).

Such claims were made only for the sake of prestige and not as a
statement of social ties. Extended families based on shared ancestry do
not seem to have played an important social role in Judaea in this period.
Endogamy, which was still highly praised in the Book of Tobit, which
was written probably in the third century B.c., is almost unknown in the
first century A.D. outside the Herodian family. The characteristic tombs
of the rich in this period, comprising central chambers surrounded by
foculi for individual coffins or ossuaries, were designed to house nuclear
rather than extended families.%

Among the most highly regarded origins was that of priests. Only
those whose fathers were priests could serve in the Temple and receive
tithes from other Jews. Intermarriage with proselytes or divorcees was
forbidden for fear of throwing doubt on the paternity of the offspring. In
their zeal to protect the purity of their lineage the priests kept their own
archives which stretched back far into the Hasmonaean period and
perhaps beyond. Of exceptionally high status were those whose ances-
tors had as High Priests acted as the religious and (except under the

% Lewis, Yadin and Greenfield 1989 (B 375); see in general the tractate Ketxboth in the Mishnah;

cf. Epstein 1942 (E 1111); Archer 1983 (£ 1076) and 1990 (£ 1077).
% Joseph. Vit. 2. 93 Tobit 6:12; Hachlili and Killebrew 1983 (£ 1132).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JEWISH RELIGION 771

Herods) secular leaders of the nation; in the first century A.D. these
families were known collectively as the High Priests.¥

But even such status from birth could in this period be undercut or
nullified by an alternative route to status through learning. The centrality
of the Torah in Judaism led directly to the prestige and popular influence
of the scholars who interpreted it. Such scholars, the ‘scribes’ of the
gospels, might come from a range of social backgrounds and were never
a hereditary caste like the priests. Nor were they a unified professional
group, for methods of interpretation differed drastically from one
scholar to another: for instance a scholar in the Pharisee tradition would
take account of popular custom but a Sadducaic scholar would not (see
CAH 1x?, 304-8).

Some Torah interpreters gained further authority from the accident of
birth since some at least were priests, though not all priests were
scholars; others perhaps increased their influence by ostentatious
personal piety in the synagogue and streets.9° Less common were
charismatic teachers who did not aim to interpret Torah. Their rarity
gave particular power to such figures as Honi the Circle-Drawer, whose
prayers could end droughts, and Hanina son of Dosa, whose cures were
famed. Stories about both men survive much embroidered in late
rabbinic texts; the picture painted there of Honi is confirmed by
Josephus’ stories of the same man, whom he names Onias.%

The career of Hanina son of Dosa seems to have been confined to
Galilee, and the regionalism of many of these religious leaders, and
indeed of local loyalties in general, militated further against national
acceptance of any single man or group. In constitutional terms (in the
eyes of both Jews and Romans) the national leader should have been the
High Priest of the day, but his authority was weakened in this period first
by the policy initiated by Herod of usually permitting each incumbent
only a short term (see above, p. 747) and second by the selection of what
was probably a quite new priestly family, that of Ananus, by the
procurators after a.p. 6: Ananus and his five sons, who all held the post,
dominated the high priesthood until a.p. 66.97

Lack of confidence in the High Priest prejudiced also the prestige of
the council over which he presided, the Sanhedrin. Later rabbinic stories
that the Sanhedrin was an appeal court composed entirely of Torah

* This interpretation is doubted by Jeremias 1969 (2 1151) 175-81, but remains the most
plausible explanation of the evidence, cf. Schirer 1979 (E 1207) 11 232-6.

53 Cf. Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 23:5-7. For the claim that the priests as a group regulated religious
behaviour, see Joseph. Ap. 11.187, 194.

% Joseph. AJ xtv.22-5. On the rabbinic traditions, see Vermes 1973 (F 231).

97 On the family of Ananus, cf. Stern 1976 (E 1218). The identification, proposed by Stern, of Ze0i
at Joseph. AJ xvit.26 with Zeéat AJ xvit.341 would link Ananus toa High Priest appointed briefly
by Archelaus.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

772 14d. JUDAEA

scholars are probably not trustworthy: inventions of the late second
century A.D. and after may have been retrojected to the period before a.p.
70; the evidence of Josephus and the New Testament, although itself not
perfect, is to be preferred.9® The precise composition of the council is not
certain, except that some members of the high-priestly families and both
Pharisees and Sadducees could be included. It seems probable that the
Sanhedrin sometimes acted also as the boule for tribute collection since a
few references to bouleutai are found;” in such cases all members will at
Rome’s insistence have been rich. It is possible that the High Priest had
the power to convene whichever advisers he thought most appropriate
for a particular case to act as his consilium. According to some opponents
of Herod quoted by Josephus, it was forbidden to put anyone to death
unless he had first been condemned by a Sanhedrin of some sort.!

The lack of clearly accepted authority in first-century Palestine, and
the resulting social confusion, were exacerbated by Roman failure to
recognize any of the competing local criteria for status. Roman insist-
ence on wealth as the prime requisite for the governing class promoted
to power men who sometimes lacked the local respect which might have
enabled them to control popular disaffection.

(c) Culture Except in the religious sphere in the .Maccabean period,
Judaean Jews did not deliberately reject the hellenistic culture dominant
in much of the Near East, but nor did they in general unconsciously
assimilate to surrounding peoples. Instead they tended to adapt Greek
and Roman customs to serve a Jewish purpose.

This process is clearly seen in the art and architecture of first-century
Judaea. The decoration of houses excavated in Jerusalem uses Greek
motifs even to the extent of plaster painted in imitation of marble
columns, but both mosaics and murals are with few exceptions aniconic.
Many tomb markers in the city’s vicinity have Greco-Roman fagades
although the tomb layout is derived from near-eastern custom. Herod’s
stoa around the Temple did not interfere with the Semitic plan of the
inner sanctuary. Theatres, amphitheatres and hippodromes were built by
the Herods at Jerusalem and Jericho; there was (probably) a theatre
alone at Sepphoris; Tiberias had a stadium and Tarichaeae a hippo-
drome; but the cultural activities in these places brought prestige to the
dynasty only outside Judaea, for such activities were, according to
Josephus, alien to Jewish custom. !0!

% For a conservative approach towards the rabbinic evidence, postulating the existence of two
Sanhedrins, see Mantel 1961 (£ 1175); cf. the more sceptical remarks in Sanders 1985 (F 212) 512-17.

9% Joseph. BJ 11.405.

100 Joseph. AJ x1v.167; cf. Joseph. AJ xx.z00, 202. For the term ovvéSpiov used to mean
consilium, see Joseph. BJ 11.25.

101 Joseph. AJ xv.268. On buildings in Jerusalem, see Avigad 1984 (E 1080).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JEWISH RELIGION 773

Less certain is the extent to which the Greek language was adopted by
Judaean Jews; it was the normal tongue of at least the upper-class
Gentiles of the cities in the vicinity of Palestine. Some Greek religious
texts were found at Qumran, though the great majority are in Semitic
tongues. The letters and legal documents of the early second century A.D.
discovered in the Judaean Desert are apparently trilingual in Greek,
Hebrew and Aramaic.!° It is probable that the rural poor knew less
Greek than the urban rich and that no Judaean spoke good Greek —
hence, perhaps, the tribune’s surprise that St Paul spoke ‘EAAnviari.!3

A major hindrance to any deeper hellenization of Judaea was the
Jewish educational curriculum in which, as Josephus boasted, the Torah
took the place of Greek literature and rhetorical ability was not highly
prized.'!% Judaean literature itself was probably little affected by Greek
literary genres, but both the Greek histories of Josephus and of Justus of
Tiberias and the uncertain provenance of many extant Jewish Greek
writings make this unsure; on the other hand, the common assumption
that texts originally composed in a Semitic language were written in
Palestine is also not entirely warranted since there was a large Jewish
diaspora in Mesopotamia.

At any rate, it is striking that all surviving Hebrew and Aramaic texts
are religious documents which show a passionate concern for ancestral
customs and bible interpretation and only slight influence by Greek
culture in, for instance, vocabulary. Semitic national annals were no
longer written after the fall of the Hasmonaean dynasty but, following
biblical models, religious poetry, such as the Psalms of Solomon and the
Qumran hymns, and wisdom literature were still popular. Characteristic
of the first century A.D. were pseudepigraphic apocalyptic prophecies
such as the Assumption of Moses and the Fourth Book of Ezra: the
pseudonymity gave necessary authority to the message in a confused
society, while the prophecy imparted comfort in present sorrows,
encouraging sincere repentance by stress on the certainty of eventual
judgment. Equally characteristic of Judaean literature from the hellenis-
tic to late-Roman period was midrash, the re-telling of familiar scriptural
stories to reinforce their impact by reflecting the contemporary world in
such works as the Book of Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon from
Qumran; such rewriting often concentrated on the careers of individual
biblical figures, sometimes in the guise of their testaments. Particularly
characteristic of the Dead Sea sect was the pesher, an exposition in which
the meaning of a biblical text treated as prophetic is determined by the
historical event or personality which the author is thought to have
predicted. It is not clear whether the interest found at Qumran in the

1@2 Benoit, Milik and De Vaux 1960 (E 1093); Avigad ef a/. 1962 (E 1081); Lewis, Yadin and
Greenfield 1989 (B 375). 103 Acts 21:37. 10 Joseph. Ap. 11.204; AJ xx.264.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

774 14d. JUDAEA

elaboration of codes of conduct such as are also found in later rabbinic
Judaism was shared by other Jews in the first century A.p.1!95

Perhaps the most fundamental cultural change through Greek
influence was in the area of law, where the Pharisees seem sometimes to
have elevated popular custom to sacred status. The rabbinic texts of the
early third century A.D. reveal the incorporation of many hellenistic legal
customs into Jewish law and the Judaean Desert documents of the early
second century (see above, n. 102) confirm that this was law in practice in
property sales, leases, marriage and divorce. Of most social and
economic significance were the laws governing tenancies of land and the
enhanced rights of women protected by marriage contracts.

2. The diaspora \%

The great spread of the Jewish diaspora was largely a phenomenon of the
late-hellenistic and Roman periods. There are good a priori reasons to
suppose that such Jews living outside Palestine may have developed
differently from their compatriots in Judaea in various ways.
Exceptional weight in the reconstruction of the-history of diaspora
Jews is necessarily accorded to the voluminous writings of Philo of
Alexandria. A pious Jew from one of the leading families in the city in
the first century A.D., Philo was highly educated in Greek literature and
Platonic philosophy. In his theological works he tried systematically to
interpret the bible as an esoteric allegory of Greek moral philosophy; he
claimed this exercise to bea necessary corollary to, rather than substitute
for, the literal interpretation of scripture. His high social status and the
peculiar political problems of Alexandrian Jews led him also to write
historical works on the vicissitudes they suffered in his own day.
Caution is however necessary in extrapolating from Philo’s evidence
to the rest of the Jewish diaspora. Other Jewish Greek writers are
known to have existed, but, of non-Christian Jewish authors, only
Philo’s theology was sufficiently congenial to the early Church to be
extensively preserved; by the third century A.D. most of the rest of this
literature was known to Clement of Alexandria and later patristic
authors only in very fragmentary selective quotations from earlier, often

105 On these texts, see Schiirer 1986 (E 1207) 111.1, 177-469, 1987 (EB 1207) 111.2, 746-808, with
bibliographies of editions and secondary discussions. Translations of Qumran material in Vermes
1987 (E 1231), and of the other material in Charlesworth 1983-5 (B 26).

106 The main evidence for Jewish society in the diaspora in the hellenistic and Roman periods
comes from the writings of Philo. Also important are Joseph. AJ, especially Book x1v; Acts of the
Apostles; remarks by a variety of non-Jewish Greek and Latin authors (cf. the comprehensive
collection by Stern 1974-84 (B 168)); a good number of inscriptions set up by Jews cf. Frey 1952-75
(8 230); papyri produced by or about Jews in Egypt (cf. CP/); and excavations both of synagogues at

Dura Europus, Sardis and Ostia and of catacombs in the city of Rome. For material on the diaspora
in general, see Schiirer 1986 (£ 1207) 1.1, 1-176, with bibliographies.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JEWISH RELIGION 775

non-Jewish, compilations, particularly that by Alexander Polyhistor.!07
It is therefore likely that Philo’s theology was not typical of Greek-
speaking Jews and it is certain that the politics of Alexandria were
specific to that city. No less untypical of Greek Jews was that other
prolific Jewish writer, St Paul. Generalizations about the diaspora can
thus only be tentatively proposed.

(a) Religion The customary designation of the religion of Jews in the
Mediterranean diaspora as hellenistic Judaism is one such potentially
misleading generalization: of none of the ideas in any surviving text can
the popularity be estimated beyond the author’s immediate circle. In
favour of a wide acceptance of Philo’s theology is only the favourable
reception accorded to St Paul in his own fusion of Jewish with Greek
thought. But many of those attracted by Paul’s teaching were not Jews at
all but Gentile and some space must be preserved for Paul’s own
originality (see below, p. 85 1-63).

According to the often disparaging remarks of non-Jewish writers in
antiquity, the religious practices of diaspora Jews were similar to those
in Judaea: circumcision, the Sabbath and food taboos were all seen by
these authors as sometimes amusing, sometimes obscene, but always
characteristic of Jews. The theft by the proconsul of Asia Lucius
Valerius Flaccus in 62-61 B.c. of a huge sum collected by Asia Minor
Jews for the Jerusalem Temple! demonstrates the respect for the
sanctuary of those who contributed. Many diaspora Jews visited the
holy city on pilgrimage at least occasionally, although the Temple’s
overwhelming religious importance in Judaea seems to have been
diminished somewhat by distance: at Leontopolis, near Memphis in
Egypt, indeed, the temple founded in the middle of the second century
B.c. by the Oniads (see CAH 1x?, 299) was only finally closed in A.D. 73,
though it had apparently never attracted many adherents outside its
immediate vicinity.

Most of the new religious trends found among Jews in Palestine in
this period are also attested in the diaspora. The extension of purity
taboos to Gentile olive oil was also practised at Antioch in Syria;
messianic hopes are probably implicit in Philo; expectation of life after
death at least for a disembodied soul is quite often expressed; the sect of
the Therapeutae in Egypt made, like the Essenes, a virtue of asceticism.
But besides this a more distinctive feature of the diaspora Jews at least of
the Mediterranean coastlands was a more thoroughgoing hellenization
in the expression of their religion than was normal in Palestine; Jews like
St Paul naturally spoke and read good Greek.

107 Such texts are discussed in Schirer 1986 (2 1207) 111.1, 509-66, 617-700.
108 Cie. Flac. 28.66-9.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

776 14d. JUDAEA

Thus Greek genres were employed by a number of hellenistic Jewish
writers. The Wisdom of Solomon is a protreptic or encomium. The
Fourth Book of Maccabees is a diatribe. The philosophy of Aristobulus
employs an eclectic variety of Stoic and other Greek teachings.!°° The
extraordinary play about the Exodus written by a certain Ezekiel
provides precious evidence for the composition of tragedy in the
hellenistic period. Significantly some forger now unknown tried to pass
off pious Jewish verses under the guise of such archaic and classical
Greek poets as Orpheus and Phocylides, probably with the intention of
impressing his fellow Jews as much as Gentiles.

For probably most Jews in the hellenistic diaspora the Septuagint was
the standard text of the bible. This translation, which had come about
gradually in the third and second centuries B.c. in Alexandria, was nearly
always used rather than the original Hebrew in surviving Jewish
writings in Greek. For Philo the Septuagint bore divine authority. It was
only in the second century a.p. that Aquila and Theodotion tried to
revise it in line with the Hebrew, although the survival of Theodotionic
readings in the New Testament and probably in the Greek scroll of the
Minor Prophets found at Qumran suggests that Theodotion had
available an earlier text from before A.p. 70 which represented either a
predecessor’s efforts at revising the Septuagint or a Greek version of the
bible quite separate from the main Septuagint tradition.

Reliance on this Greek version of the sacred Torah had in itself some
effect on theological development as Greek terms which corresponded
to only one meaning of a Hebrew word were equated to the whole range
of its meanings, creating thereby a range of ‘septuagintalisms’ which
made Jewish religious Greek nearly incomprehensible to outsiders while
simultaneously importing the extraneous overtones of the Greek word
(e.g. d6£a, elpjvn, Sixacoadvn) into new contexts.

This power of language to stimulate new concepts may be illustrated
by the presence of terminology reminiscent of the mysteries in some
hellenistic Jewish writings including, though not prominently, the
Septuagint: it has been argued, mostly because of mystery terminology
in the works of Philo and St Paul and (rather fancifully interpreted) the
iconography of some late-Roman Jewish artefacts, that a Jewish mystery
cult existed in the hellenistic diaspora.!!9 But there is no direct evidence
for this, and it is striking that many of the contemporary traditions
incorporated in the classic midrashic fashion in the interpretation of the
Hebrew text by the Septuagint translators preserve teachings otherwise

109 The fragments of Aristobulus are preserved in part in Clement of Alexandria and in Eusebius,
Hist. Eccl., and most extensively in Eus. Praep. Evang. vit.22.16—18; vill.10; XHI.12.
10 Goodenough 195 3-68 (E 1126).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JEWISH RELIGION 777

known only in later semitic midrashic compilations rather than compris-
ing specifically hellenistic versions of the text.

(b) Society By the first century a.p. Jews were found not only in Egypt
and the parts of Syria closest to Palestine (the largest diaspora communi-
ties) but also in large numbers in Asia Minor, Greece, Cyrene, Cyprus
and Rome. There was some settlement on the coast of the Black Sea and
in some areas of southern Italy but no Jews are known from the western
Mediterranean until the late-Roman period. Emigration from Judaea to
the diaspora had begun in earnest in hellenistic times for reasons
discussed in CAH 1x2, 275, 297. There were further surges after the
suppression of revolts in A.D. 70 and A.D. 135 — many such éwigrés must
have been exported as slaves — but the essential configuration of diaspora
communities had already been set by the period covered by this volume.

Jewish communities were found in the countryside in Syria and Egypt
but were largely an urban phenomenon. In foreign cities they were self-
regulating either de facto through voluntary social isolation or by special
permission of the city authorities as at Alexandria in the time of
Augustus. Their magistrates, whose titles ranged from ethnarch (in
Alexandria) to archisynagogos or presbuteroi, imposed communal law with
the ultimate sanction of exclusion from the community: deviants such as
St Paul!!! preferred to submit to their own court’s jurisdiction even at
the risk of corporal punishment rather than face such social death. The
law imposed was presumably based upon the Torah, but by what
principles it was interpreted is unknown: the view that Philo’s theoreti-
cal elaboration of legal minutiae reflects the law in practice among Jews
in Egypt is not tenable.!!2

The physical foci of these communities were the synagogues, of which
each settlement would have at least one and the larger communities
several scattered around the localities. Because the sanctity of the
Temple site loomed less large outside Judaea these synagogues became
more than just meeting-places: they were places of sanctity — Josephus
even describes one as a iepdv.'!3 Thus the first-century B.C. synagogue at
Delos, identified by inscriptions to ‘the most high god’, was an
impressive structure; nothing is known about the earliest Jewish
buildings which underlie the extant fine third- and fourth-century
synagogues at Dura Europus, Ostia and Sardis, but literary references to
the magnificence of synagogues in the first century A.D. elsewhere in the
diaspora are quite common.'!4 The primary function of such edifices

U2 Cor. 11:24. 112 Goodenough 1929 (£ 1124). M3 Joseph. BJ vit.44-3.

"4 Philo, Leg. 20 (132); Joseph. BJ vit.44—5; ¢.Sukk. 4: 6. On synagogue buildings, see Shanks
1979 (E 1210).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

778 14d. JUDAEA

was, as in Judaea, the stipulated reading of the Torah, but around this
role accreted a regular liturgy which probably included the public recital
of blessings and other prayers,!!5 and, at least by the fourth century a.D.,
the chanting of psalms.!'6

The need to live close to a synagogue was one cause of the tendency of
Jews to cluster in particular quarters in each city, but this trait reflects
also the general attitude that separation from the non-Jewish world was
in itself desirable and pious; in confirmation of this attitude but not its
motive, to the pagan Tacitus it appeared that Jews ‘stayed apart in their
meals and their beds’ out of ‘a certain hatred of the human race’.!!7 Jews
abstained from the meals which might have formed social bonds,
provoking particular resentment by not participating in the public feasts
which constituted an important element in civic paganism (see below,
p. 845). Explicit evidence for intermarriage is scanty, but this may reflect
not the rarity of such liaisons but a reluctance to advertise them. Such
unions took place with Jewish approval only after the conversion of the
Gentile partner and this was possibly a factor in the decision of some
proselytes to become Jewish (see below, p. 851). In other cases the
Jewish partner may have chosen to abandon Judaism, but it.is imposs-
ible to judge the frequency of such apostasy.

Hostility between the Jews and their neighbours was by no means
constant, but the massacres perpetrated or threatened by each side in the
Syrian cities in A.D. 66 must reflect sentiments which had originated
before violence was precipitated by the events of that year in Judaea. It is
likely that when antagonism flared up, it was provoked by local issues
which can no longer be discovered. Thus at Alexandria in Egypt, the
only place where the detailed history of Jewish—Gentile relations is
recorded, many of the stresses which led to bloodshed were specific to
the city.

The Jews of Alexandria, who had prospered exceptionally under the
late Ptolemies through direct royal patronage, were relegated by
Augustus to the status of the native Egyptians because of the princeps’
policy of entrusting power to Greeks in the eastern part of his domain.
Such treatment was particularly irksome to the highly hellenized Jewish
elite. The writings of the philosopher Philo show that some such Jews
felt themselves to be fully part of the wider culture of their time while
retaining their distinctive Jewish identity. The Jews’ struggle to be rid of
subjection to the ignominious /aographia or poll-tax, and their demand
for isopoliteia (which may have meant either the right to participate in the
city’s government or treatment of their own politeuma as of equal

"5 Hengel 1971 (£1134); Justin Martyr, Dial. ¢. Trypho 16, 117.
"6 Fasola 1976 (E 1114). 7 Tac. Hist. v.5.1-2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JEWISH RELIGION 779

standing to, and independent of, the city administration)!!8 are thor-
oughly documented not only by Philo, who was himself leading figure
on the Jewish side, but also by Josephus and by papyrus fragments of
writings belonging to a curious genre known to modern scholars as the
Acts of the Pagan Martyrs.\9 The conflict in Alexandria reached a peak
under Gaius, partly because of the excessive partiality shown near the
end of Tiberius’ reign towards the Greeks and against the Jews by the
prefect of Egypt A. Avillius Flaccus.

Such local disputes only exceptionally brought diaspora Jews into
conflict with the Roman government, which in general protected Jewish
interests in line with the highly sympathetic declarations made in their
favour — probably for immediate political advantage — by Iulius Caesar,
Antony and Augustus.!20 In the city of Rome itself, however, Jews were
expelled by Tiberius and either ejected or forbidden to congregate by
Claudius, in the former case as punishment for a fraud practised on a
Roman matron, in the latter case because of rioting which had probably
been confined within the Jewish community.!2! The Jews of Rome were
a large group mostly descended from prisoners brought to the capital as
slaves by Pompey in 63 B.c. and Sosius in 37 B.c. Their numbers had
expanded under Augustus when many of these immigrants won their
freedom: thus synagogues were named after Augustus and Agrippa.!22
But they remained confined to the poorest class among the plebs and
became notorious as beggars. The expulsions reflect Tiberius’ concern
to uphold Augustus’ propaganda of the restoration of old Roman cults —
adherents of Isis were also driven out — while Claudius was perhaps only
intent on the preservation of order in the crowded metropolis. At any
rate Jews returned rapidly after each expulsion and probably few ever in
fact went beyond the suburbs. By late antiquity the catacombs reveal a
large Jewish population.

The diaspora communities apparently made no move to participate in
the anti-Roman uprising of A.D. 66 to 70 except in the immediate vicinity
of Palestine and briefly in Alexandria, but this loyalty to Rome was
severely strained both by Titus’ destruction of the Temple and by the
imposition on a// Jews in the empire after A.D. 70 of the fiscus Iudaicus, the
annual payment to Jupiter Capitolinus by both male and female Jews of
the regular offerings previously sent to Jerusalem by adult male Jews
alone. In a.p. 116 the Jews of Cyprus, with those of Egypt and Cyrene,

"18 This latter interpretation is argued in full by Kasher 1985 (£ 1154).

119 Musurillo 1954 (B 381). The Philo treatises are In Flacenm and Legatio ad Gaium.

120 Joseph. AJ xrv.185—267, 301-23, xv1.160-78; cf. Rajak 1984 (£ 1194).

121 On banishments under Tiberius, see Tac. Aan. 11.85; Suet. Tih. 36; Joseph. AJ xm1.84; for

action against Jews by Claudius, see Dio Lx.6; Acts 18:2; Suet. Cland. 25.
12 CH 1? nos. 284, 365.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

780 14d. JUDAEA

rose in bloody revolt as much against their Greek neighbours as the
Roman government. Totally crushed after two years, the Jewish
communities of Egypt and Cyrene disappear from the historical record
for centuries, while the death penalty was decreed for any Jew who set
foot on Cyprus.!2

But the world around these diaspora Jews was not always so
antagonistic. The separateness of the Jews in itself proved attractive to
some pagans, for Gentiles were enticed to become proselytes in the
diaspora far more than in Judaea and there is little evidence that this
resulted from deliberate Jewish missionary activity. Such conversion
had dramatic consequences for the proselyte, who was cut off from
family and friends by voluntary self-exclusion from their meals and
worship. The number who took this step is variously estimated at a huge
or minimal figure; epigraphic evidence for proselytes of the first century
A.D. is rare, and Josephus is informative only about the famous
conversion of the royal family of Adiabene. 124

Better testimony to amicable relations between Jews and Gentiles in
some cities is the role of Gentiles who accreted to the synagogues in a
great variety of ways without joining the Jewish community. Such
people were perhaps attracted by the theology of Judaism or wished to
placate the Jewish along with other powerful deities; this latter motive
presumably lay behind the offerings made by many non-Jews to the
Jerusalem Temple. Such ‘god-fearers’ (theon phoboumenoi or seboumenot)
are assumed by the Acts of the Apostles and Josephus; a list of sheosebeis
distinguished both from Jews and from full proselytes shows that a
formal group attached toa Jewish community was clearly identified by
this name in late-Roman Aphrodisias, but the precise status in Jewish
eyes of such sympathetic Gentiles was perhaps less well defined by Jews
in earlier periods. '25

Iv. CONCLUSION

The impression that Jewish history in this period was different in kind
from that of other provincials is probably exaggerated by the religious
orientation of much of the surviving evidence, but since that impression
was shared by contemporary Gentiles and not least by Roman adminis-
trators it must be accounted a major factor in the peculiar and frequently
unhappy fortunes of the Jews within the Roman empire. In the attempt

123 Dio. exvutt.32.1-3; ef. Pucci 1981 (E 1190); Barnes 1989 (E 1087). See CAH xr’.

1% Joseph. AJ xx.17—-96. On god-fearers and proselytes, see Schiirer 1986 (E 1207) 111.1, 150-76;
McKnight 1991 (£ 1174).

125 Acts 10:2, 22; 13:16, 26, 43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7; Joseph. AJ xrv.110. On the Aphrodisias
inscription, see Reynolds and Tannenbaum 1987 (£ 1198). On changing attirudes towards
‘godfearers’, see Cohen 1989 (£ 1103); Goodman 1989 (p 132).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONCLUSION 781

of the Roman elite during the late Republic and early Empire to define
the correct place of religion within the state, Judaism was generally
excluded from the body of respectable cults and designated a superstitio.
Since Jews’ social and political relations were almost always expressed
by them in terms of their religion, all Jews who did not apostatize were
treated as outsiders in the Roman world. Such wilful hostility towards,
rather than simple ignorance about, the native culture of a subject people
was not typical of Roman provincial administration. It resulted in the
two great Judaean revolts of a.p. 66-70 and 132-5, and in the no less
sanguinary conflict in the diaspora in A.D. 116-17.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 15

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT UNDER
AUGUSTUS AND HIS SUCCESSORS!

NICHOLAS PURCELL

Augustus’ own summary of the impact of his rule on the city of Rome
was the boast, often quoted, almost proverbial ‘urbem. .. marmoream se
relinquere, quam latericiam accepisset’, that the city he had taken charge
of in brick he passed on in marble (Suet. Axg. 28.3, cf. Dio Lv1.30). The
philosophically inclined Cassius Dio took him metaphorically and
referred the contrast to the might of Rome’s power (LVI.30.4); the aim of
this survey likewise is to proceed from the physical aspect of the city and
the messages which it proclaimed on into the changes in the behaviour of
its ordinary inhabitants which were promoted by the arrival and
development of the Principate. The double interpretation of the first
princeps’ remark does suggest after all that changes of this kind were in
fact perceived as a unitary achievement, and that the achievement was
considered important. This account hopes to show why it was thought
important, and why it is impossible to partition off the architectural and
physical history of the city from the social and economic history of its
populace.?

The enormous brick ruins of the monuments of Augustus’ heirs
which characterize the centre of Rome today make Augustus’ words
sound paradoxical to the modern visitor: they need some explanation
and interpretation.

The ‘brick’ in question, to begin with, is not the kiln-fired, almost
indestructible product of later Roman architecture: it is the traditional
sundried mud brick of Italian domestic architecture, and also, probably,
refers to the terracotta decorations which had so characterized the sacred
architecture of Italy from the seventh century B.c. For Augustus was
thinking primarily of the city as defined by its public architecture, and
above all by its religious buildings. It was here that his own personal

! I am grateful to the editors for their opinions on this piece. It takes for granted the account of
the demography, composition and economic activities of che urban plebs which will be found in
CAH tx?, ch. 17 and is designed to introduce the much more problematic world of the urban
populace in the middle Empire which is discussed in CAH x1?. I have naturally not attempted to
cover every facet of the architectural and social history of Rome between 44 B.C. and a.D. 70.

2 Zanker 1988 (F 633) now has pride of place among studies of this subject, but there is a good
deal of further work required.

782

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 783

initiatives had done most to effect a change, and it is important that his
mot refers not to a sweeping alteration just of substandard old-fashioned
cheap building materials in general architecture, but a revolution which
replaced style, content and form in some of Rome’s — traditional Rome’s
—~ most venerable and significant monuments.3 It is also important to
notice that in this phrase we have testimony to Augustus’ taking a
general view of the visual face of the city of Rome, and forming a clear
idea of how he thought it best that that face should be changed.

Our knowledge of the fabric of the city in the last century and a half of
the Republic is scanty: this is an ignorance which must be recognized
before a limited picture can be evolved. It will not do to retroject too
casually the better documented conditions of the middle Empire. An
improved organizational structure, the revolution in architectural tech-
nology, changing social conditions combined with the perennial oppor-
tunities of the fires and floods to produce a very different urban
atmosphere in the Flavian and subsequent periods. What can we say of
the earlier city?

Rome’s site provides all the raw materials for a city. Strabo, enthusing
about the ‘concurrence of advantages which surpasses all the beneficence
of nature’ (v.3.7 (234-5C)) makes a point of setting the supply of brick
stone and wood beside the resources of local agriculture as the explana-
tion of the city’s survival. The Alban volcanoes are the real source of this
endowment. Only a few kilometres down the Appian Way from the city
gate lies the furthest-reaching lava flow, providing the indestructibly
hard silex, ‘selce’ with which Roman roads were paved; still more
important, across the site of Rome and along the Anio to the north east
of the city where they were easily accessible to waterborne transport, the
easily worked tufas of the Alban volcanoes are found: they outcrop on all
the scarps of the Seven Hills, which were far more precipitous in the
Republic than can easily be imagined today. The scarps themselves
provided opportunities for myriad semi-troglodytic dwellings, extended
outwards, one on another in a muddled jumble, with the cut rock and
with the dried mud-brick of the Tiber’s alluvial clays, bound and roofed
likewise with the products of the thickets of the valley-floors — wattle of
the giant reed, harundo donax, willow withies, saplings, boughs and even
substantial timber. For domestic housing in the early years no formal
planning or allocation of lots in the Greek style was possible or
necessary; the city inevitably grew by accretion, woven and built like a
modern shanty town out of the substance of the locality itself. Unlike a
shanty town or the warrens of a medieval Levantine city — and the
warrenlike nature of republican Rome was a commonplace in the first
century B.c. (Cic. Leg. Agr. 11.96, cf. Livy, v.55.2—5) — from the first, the

3 Zanker 1988 (F 633) esp. chs. 3-4; Gros 1976 (F 397) 15-52.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

784 1g. ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

habitations of Rome had a strong vertical component, created by the
slopes of the hills and the winding defiles of the valleys between them. As
archaeology begins to unravel the less monumental parts of the urban
fabric, the organic growth of the tangled clusters of rooms out from the
naked tufa (as well as into it in many cases) in layer after layer ascending
from the winding streets of the valley bottoms, is being revealed in case
after case.4 Naturally the bulkiest, most elaborate of these structures are
the ones of imperial fired brick like those which extend the Palatine
towards the Forum and the Velabrum; but the principle is much older.
These stacked cellular accretions, extending the hillside into the air, are
what the Romans first called insulae; the name is clearly as old as the
middle Republic, but we should not imagine the free standing block-by-
block island lots of Ostia at that period. The tendency to make the casual
accretions on the hillsides more regular, to give them more architectural
form and legal definition, to build freestanding equivalents of the level
ground of hill-top or valley floor, started in the Republic — the legislation
on party-walls and the like recorded by Vitruvius (11.8.16—17) shows that
— but we have no way of knowing how far it had progressed by the
Augustan period. We need not doubt, however, that Pliny’s description
of Rome as urbs pensilis ‘suspended city’ was true from a very early date.>
Equally part of the population lived informally in the crevices of the
towering buildings, sleeping rough in tabernae or huddled in the vaults
beneath the seating of the theatres, circuses and amphitheatres, right to
the end of Antiquity (Amm. Marc. 14.6.25).

An architecture appropriate to a ‘hanging city’ had emerged in west
central Italy by the third century B.c. It is difficult to be sure where it was
developed ~ Rome is not the only city-site with complex and varied relief
to contend with, and some of our early examples are Campanian. The
architecture comprised the use of strong concrete and squared stone, the
arch and — at first on a limited scale — the barrel vault, to extend hillsides
at will with platforms, terraces, ramps and stairways. The purpose was a
monumental urbanism like that of the hellenistic East, seen at its acme in
the acropolis of Pergamum; its finest example in Italy is the sanctuary of
Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste (Palestrina). At Rome this was the

* For the temporary nature of these buildings and their vulnerability to redevelopment, Phillips
1973 (F 524). The vocabulary of maeniana, tabulatio, contignationes is expressive; Festus, s.v.
adtibernium, Pliny, HN xvt.36 on use of shingles, making a connexion of thought with the vanished
timber of the site of Rome; for good and bad practice in insula-building, Vit. De Arcb. 11.8.18-20. On
collapses, Strab. v (234-5C) xtv.5.4 (670C), and Dio xxx1x.61 (dissolving of unbaked brick by
floodwater). For the piling up of tall buildings, Sen. Coatros. 11.1.11-12; Sen. Ep. go—7; Amm. Marc.
27.9.8. On insudae in general, Boethius 1960 (F 290) 129—85. For the materials, note also the passage of
Ovid quoted on p. 803.

5 Pliny’s description covers both the opera pensilia of substructions and platforms, and the sewers
which lay beneath the city to serve as storm drains: cf. Strab. v.3.8 (235C); Soranus, 11.xx (xL).44
(113). These were a standard ingredient in the praises of the city.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 785

architecture of the great projects of the ‘building censors’ of the age after
the Hannibalic War, and in the late Republic was deployed for the
sculpting of the Forum face of the Capitol by Lutatius Catulus, with the
monumental public complex (the so-called Tabularium) which still
survives; and for private enterprises like the suburban estates of the hills
north of the city. Here it is important to stress one negative point:
although Claudius and Nero, Trajan and Septimius Severus, continued
the approach with the improved materials available to them, creating
hills where there had been empty space, Augustus and his fellow builders
largely ignored this traditional approach to urbanism for most of their
ascendancy. Indeed it can be argued that through the laws on building,
controlling the heights of the i#su/ae and regulating such matters as
party-walls, which were enforced at this period, Augustus actually
explicitly discouraged the tendency towards an arbs pensilis. It must be
remembered that the development of kiln-fired brick during the next
century made it much safer to develop the traditional tall architecture; it
was that progress that made possible the ‘New Rome’ of Nero after the
Great Fire, with regular blocks of very tall insu/ae and regular wide
streets between them, and the later elaboration of this architecture in
complexes like the Markets of Trajan or the northern substructures of
the Palatine. It is hard to imagine a public building more alien to
Augustan Rome than the former.®

In order to understand the preferences of the age we must return to the
ideological background to Augustus’ dealing with the city of Rome.
Building had been a prominent part of the self-presentation of the
Roman elite since time immemorial, and Augustus needed to excel at all
the activities which conferred auctoritas; so he could not but display his
power in this way, could not refrain from adding his monumenta to the
accumulated record of the great men of the past which could be read in
the architecture of Rome. It would have been absurd, too, to pass up the
opportunities of subtle communication of political and ideological
messages which architecture provided. Caesar had planned and started
projects which were very much in the vein which we have discussed,
grandiose and elaborate reworkings of the physical and structural
landscape of the city — the new course of the Tiber, the Capitol sculpted
with a great theatre, the opening out of the Forum and Saepta with great
colonnaded enclosures.’ The style of thought as of architecture was
hellenistic and regal; the glitter and the power were the point, the people

® On this architectural tradition see Gros 1978 (F 398); Gros 1976 (F 397) ch. 2 for the weaknesses
in Augustan design.

7 Caesar’s plans: see esp. Suet. Iw/. 44; Cic. Att. 1v.16.8; RG 20.3. It is noteworthy that Augustus
saw his own work as to some extent the realization of Caesar’s plans, with the extension of his Forum

and the completion of the Basilica Julia; but as in the world of ceremonial and self-celebration his
work had a different and often more cautious nuance.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUQ oSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey
‘amoy jo dew yoaayg ‘or “317

| vid V3Q 40 3A0N9
ONV SfHOd OL

wnuvsave
SNWAN

snysnony

O 0 uneosnew
INVLLSNTIVS
LLYOH

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 787

the audience: at close quarters, since the buildings were designed as the
stage for the activities in which the elite encouraged them. Alexandria
and Pergamum were the inspiration. The great theatre and porticus
complex of Pompey in the Campus Martius was a statement in the same
language, and it may well be that this nuance should be read in much of
the new architecture of the hundred years before Augustus. The
conquerors and exploiters of the East, the people of the Italian peninsula,
brought home to their communities the ambitious architectural airs of
those they had conquered.’ Strabo expresses the mood well (v.3.8
(235—6C)); the Romans of old had more serious things on their mind, but
Pompey, Caesar, Augustus, his sons, friends, wife and sister (the list,
thus, is Strabo’s) have added beauty, filling the city with their offerings.
The word used is anathemata, notable for its religious flavour.

The party of Octavian had been compelled to adopt this type of
benefaction during the politically complex years between Philippi and
the restoration of the res publica. With Antony in Alexandria, the capital
of hellenistic culture, it was essential for his rivals to make some
statement about their attitude to the East, and it was not at first obvious
that this would be the rejection espoused in the months before Actium
by ‘tota Italia’. These were the years when the people of the capital were
at their most dangerous; more numerous than at any previous time, they
were easily swollen by the arrivals of all the displaced of the times of
trouble, and at no point in the years after the Gracchi had they so much
identified political strength with brute force and had so clear a prospec-
tus of aims as they had acquired in the years which stretched from
Catiline through the struggle of Clodius and Milo to the ascendancy of
Caesar. So the affairs of the city were a pressing objective for Octavian
and his party, and for their opponents likewise.

The mood was religious. Sulla and Pompey had not omitted the
temples of Rome from their building programmes; Cicero contributed
to the reconstruction of the temple of Tellus. But the sophisticated
religious policy of Caesar and chaos of the times combined to produce a
competition among some of the principes viri for which there is no recent
precedent in what is, after all, a well-documented period. Munatius
Plancus’ restoration of the temple of Saturn (42 B.c.), the massive
retaining-wall of the sanctuary of Juno Lucina built by Q. Pedius,
Domitius Ahenobarbus’ temple of Neptune (between 42 and 38),
Domitius Calvinus’ lavish reconstruction of the Regia (36), C. Sosius’
restoration of the temple of Apollo near the Circus Flaminius and
Marcius Philippus’ of that of Hercules Musarum in 29 B.c.; these make a
varied and impressive list. This is the background against which we must

8 Gros 1976 (F 397) 235-42; Zanker 1976 (E 141) passim for the hellenistic architecture of Italy, cf.
Gros 1978 (F 398); Zanker 1988 (F 633) 33-77-

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

788 15. ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

see the vows of Octavian himself, the temple to Divus Iulius voted in 42
B.c. and that of Mars Ultor, first conceived in that year also; the temple of
Apollo Palatinus, dedicated in 28 B.c., as well as the more mundane
reconstruction work on the temple of Jupiter Feretrius in 31 B.c., which
began the great record of his temple maintenance that was to last the
whole of his rule. The keynote of much of this building was eastern
magnificence. Pedius’ work seems to have been in the tradition of the
great substructure architecture of the late Republic. Sosius’ temple is a
splendid display of Hellenism, from its own elegant floral marble-work
to the re-used Greek pediment sculptures, now recently re-discovered,
which graced its fagade. Likewise Ahenobarbus displayed an enormous
sculptural tour de force by Scopas in his temple (Pliny, HN xxxv1.26);
Calvinus’ Regia was another very costly display-piece (HIN xxxvi.48;
Dio xLv1iI.42), some of the sculpture in which he very cannily managed
to borrow from Octavian: it included two of the caryatids which had
held up the tent of Alexander the Great. The triumphal mood is
prominent, and the recently discovered fragment of an elegy by Gallus
referring to the enrichment of Rome’s temples by the conquests of a
‘Caesar’ well fits the mood of the moment whether it refers to Julius or,
as is perhaps preferable, Octavian.?

The religious fervour is striking, and, as we shall see, left its mark on
the character of the Augustan Principate. But not all the monumenta of the
period were sacred: we may cite the dedication of the ambitious
reconstruction of the Basilica Paulli in 34 and the rebuilding of the Villa
Publica by Fonteius Capito. These were more than matched by Octavian
and Agrippa: the former restored the Porticus Octavia and — with great
display of modesty — the complex of Pompey’s buildings nearby. A key
moment was the aedilate of Agrippa in 33 B.c., a freak itself for an ex-
consul, in which he devoted himself to works which were at once
popularis, in that they could be seen as utilitarian benefactions, and potent
demonstrations of power, power over Nature, power to alter the
landscape. The reworking of the world beneath the hanging city was
carried out with great display, Agrippa inverting nature by going along
the duct of the restored Cloaca Maxima in a cart. The aqueduct-system
was overhauled, and a whole new aqueduct, the Aqua Iulia, added to the
system and the Aqua Virgo perhaps planned.!° We hear an echo of the
great triumphal inscriptions of the dynasts, with their enumerations of
conquered cities, in what seems to be a quotation from Agrippa’s own res

9 Gros 1976 (F 397) 207, the temple of Divus lulius as ‘une sorte de manifeste architectural’.
Apollo Sosianus: La Rocca 1980-1 (F 459). Apollo Palatinus: Lefévre 1989 (F 466). On the
Corinthian order, Wilson-Jones 1989 (F 622); Gros 1976 (F 397) 197-234. Zanker on building, 1988
(F 633) 42-31. Gallus fragment: Anderson, Parsons, and Nisbet 1979 (B 4).

10 Shipley 1931 (F 571) with Boethius 1934 (E 6); Roddaz 1984 (c 200) 145-57.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 789

gestae: ‘he made 700 cisterns, and 500 fountainheads besides, and 130
water-towers, very many of them lavish in ornamentation; and on those
works he set 300 bronze or marble statues, and 400 marble columns — and
all this in the space of one year. He added, in commemoration of his
aedilate, games which were held for 59 days, and 170 occasions to use
bath houses, without charge’ (Pliny, HN xxxvi.121; Peter HRR 11 p.
64).

So even before Actium the victorious party was in the ascendant,
already beating the other triumphatores at the game that was being so
earnestly played with the city’s architecture. After the victory the style
remained; restraint, whether of means or modesty, was over. The
dedications of the temples of Divus Iulius (29) and of Apollo Palatinus
announced the triumphant outcome of the epoch; and on the Campus
Martius rose a complex of monuments which outdid Alexandria and
Antony forever in their regal oriental splendour. The first is the trophy
itself, the obelisk dedicated to Alexandria’s god, the Sun, to commemor-
ate the city’s subjection in the centre of the gigantic sundial which was
the work of the citizens’ scientific genius. The second, immediately
adjacent, is the artificial mountain on the Tiber’s bank, dominating the
approaches to Rome by road and river, in a man-made nature of gardens,
which was to be Augustus’ resting-place and memorial, the Mausoleum.
The third, likewise, has a significance which is overtly dynastic and
monatchic: the Pantheon of Agrippa, in which images of Augustus and
Agrippa enjoyed a divine context in a building whose siting and design
seems to have been designed to recall the apotheosis of the city’s first
Founder, Romulus. The Greekness of the nearby artificial lake and of the
hot baths which adjoined it was obvious; the luxury was almost more
than Egyptian.!!

But the mood did not last, or Rome might have been transformed by
A.D. 14 into the most remarkable instance of all that was most grandiose
in hellenistic taste. It was after the buoyant mood of the early twenties,
restored peace, sole power, family harmony, that the style of Augustan
planning for the monuments of Rome changes. The ‘Crisis in Party and
State’ of 23-19 may be the main explanation. Just as the most careful
symbiosis of the novus status with old constitutional forms begins at this
moment, so the type of building and of architecture becomes more
‘democratic’ and less Asiatic in its florid extravagance. Some of the
themes of the earlier phase are developed ~— the popular utilitarianism,
the religious atmosphere, the beautification of the city with public
suburban benefactions, which we shall investigate. But the magnificence
of the monarchic princeps, the hubristic luxury and the grandiloquence of
style, these disappear. Contrast the archaizing polychrome alien glories

" Buchner 1982 (F 306) the sundial; on the Pantheon, Coarelli 1983 (F 333).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

790 15. ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

of the complex of Apollo Palatinus with the sober mix of Athenian and
old Roman in the temple of Mars Ultor, which formed the centre-piece
of the greatest project of the later part of Augustus’ rule, the Forum
Augustum.!2

Augustus continued to enjoy the best of both worlds. His own house
on the Palatine could with justice be regarded as modest by the standards
of the day, and it was not until the reign of Nero that a great purpose-
built palace complex dominated the Palatine (the platform, like that ofan
enormous villa, whose substructions remain beneath the Farnese Gar-
dens, and which supported the pavilions and peristyles of the complex
misleadingly known today as Domus Tiberiana). But it was not wholly a
private house; Augustus made it over to the People to satisfy ritual
requirements when he became High Priest in 12 B.c., and these religious
connotations helped produce an ambiguity as to where his living-
quarters stopped and the public buildings began. A hearth-temple of
Vesta was part of the monumental approach to his moderate abode
which was inseparable from the splendour of the porticus of the complex
of Apollo Palatinus. When the Senate met in that temple, although the
impropriety of meeting in the house of the princeps was avoided,
symbolically that was indeed what they were doing. The grand row of
ancient houses of patrician magistrates which lined the Via Sacra as it
rose onto the slopes of the Palatine from the Forum until it was
obliterated by the fire of a.p. 64, which forever wiped out this display of
the antiquity of the Romanaristocracy, could now be regarded as leading
up to the front door of Augustus’ ambiguous home.3 Their honours
now consisted likewise not in contributing to the monumenta of Rome but
in being subordinated to Augustus’ new creations. When a prominent
consular died in A.D. 56 this is how his outstanding honours were
described: ‘three triumphal statues, one bronze in the Forum Augustum,
two marble in the new temple of the Divine Augustus; three consular
statues, one in the temple of the Divine Julius, a second on the Palatine
inside the Triple Gate, a third in the Precinct of Apollo in sight of where
the Senate meets; one as Augur, at the Regia; one on horseback at the
Speaker’s Platform in the Forum; and one sitting in a curule chair in the
Theatre of Pompey, in the Colonnade of the Lentuli’ (AE 1972, 174).
The regime now had total control of the symbolic topography of the

12 Zanker 1988 (F 633) ch. 3 for the change; éd. Forum Augustum n.d. [c. 1968] (F 625) (note the
caryatids). Note however that Athenian craftsmen worked on the Pantheon (Pliny, HN xxxvr. 38).
For the politics — and the phrase ‘Crisis in the Party and State’ — Syme 1939 (A 93) ch. 23.

13 For the platform under the Farnese gardens, Krause 1985 (F 458); on Augustus’ house,
Wiseman 1987 (F 81). The new discovery of the grand houses of the Via Sacra (Carandini) confirms
his account strikingly. Houses too close to the Forum were already a risk politically in a.p. 20 (Tac.
Aan. 111.9, strikingly confirmed by the new senatusconsultum on the verdict on Piso); after the great
fire those that survived could help destroy a consul (Aan. xv.69).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 791

public space of the inner city; eight years after this display private space
followed suit in the aftermath of the fire. But the Golden House, cutting
a swathe through the city, for all its conceits and sheer offensive bulk,
only made obvious a takeover of the city by the Caesars that had already
happened when Augustus died.

Rome’s periphery had undergone various evolutions with the changes
in the nature and size of the population and the availability of wealth and
food. One of the most striking was the tendency for the greatest men in
the state to accumulate suburban property which they could convert into
extraordinarily luxurious display-grounds for their wealth. The voca-
bulary was the same as we have seen in the buildings of the triumviral
period — changing the face of nature, cultivating paradox. The proximity
to seething Rome of evocations of the coast or countryside or wilderness
was the most enjoyable feature, to emphasize which they called these
estates ‘kitchen gardens’, sorti. Even if the most extravagant Baroque
taste of these whimsical pleasure-palaces was to be a creation of the first
century a.D., they had already by this period attained considerable
magnificence; in Augustus’ own camp C. Maecenas was the creator of a
particularly lavish example on the Esquiline.'4 The real singularity of
Nero’s Domus Aurea lay in extending inwards to the very heart of Rome
the most opulent of these estates ever seen. By that time, the prestige
attaching to the ownership of these pleasure-palaces was considered too
great for anyone except the princeps. Claudius’ reign had seen the fall of
two great senators whose sorti were thought to have contributed to their
doom, and the suburban estates of the imperial patrimony had become a
principal residence of the ruler from Caligula onwards.

Now the tone of this private luxury was, as we have seen, very close to
the monarchic assertiveness which Augustus at first practised. So it was
dangerous in the hands of other primores — and led many of them, in the
reigns of Augustus’ successors, to disaster. Nor was it, for the reasons
outlined, even appropriate for the princeps himself. Augustus chose the
path of benefaction as an alternative, and encouraged expenditure on
more open public recreation places, not wholly different in their aesthetic
language, but not exclusive or politically sensitive. The proastion of the
hellenistic city had long been a potential place for this kind of architec-
ture, and the repertoire of public walks, plantings, porticoes and
waterworks had been tapped by Pompey and Caesar, whose admission of
the populace into his own suburbanum in Transtiberim (across the Tiber)
foreshadowed Augustus’ activity in this area. A formal suburb of this
kind was designed to be the location of the ceremonies of arrival and
departure which had developed their standing during the Republic and
became a feature of the public life of the principes (for an Augustan

'4 For dorti Purcell 1987 (F 52), 1987 (F 51); gardens of Maecenas, Hauber 1990 (E 38).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

792 15. ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

example Dio Lv1.1.1); it also provided a chance to pose as a second
founder, building a new city alongside the old, as Hadrian was later todo
at Athens. For Strabo the effect of the very numerous buildings of
Augustus and his circle in the Campus Martius was to produce a suburb
more beautiful than the city (v.3.8 (235—-6C)). The process, again
reminiscent of Caesar, was to make over to the public formally a building
created on private land by private contract, as Dio makes clear in
discussing the works of Agrippa; the effect was to tone down the
unpleasant associations of /uxus by, making it a benefaction to all
Romans, a sign of their status in the world. When Augustus demolished
the house of Vedius Pollio, a byword for opulence, and Livia built a
porticus there instead, the moral message was very clear. As early as 60
B.C. we find the son of the dictator Sulla pampering the plebs with baths
and free oil as well as games and banqueting (Dio xxxvit.5 1.4). Nero’s
great gymnasium on the Campus Martius, expanding the Baths of
Agrippa with a complex which set the tone for the later imperial
Thermae, made explicit the Hellenic associations of this gesture. Part of
what made luxury desitable was that it had the cachet of Greek
civilization. But it was being made available not just to the ruling class,
but to all inhabitants of the imperial city. We notice too that even
Maecenas’ horti seem first to have been accessible to the public and,
second, to have had the purpose of reclaiming a frightful polluted stretch
of suburban land for public and salubrious use.!5

Thus it was that the prevailing architecture of Augustan Rome is not
the concrete and vault, arch and terrace native to Rome and Italy, but the
less boastful and more relaxed sequences of squares, courts and colon-
nades which the forty years of Augustan rule extended across much of
Rome. Thus it was also that the utilitarian note was struck, in buildings
like the Market of Livia, another of the improvements to the Esquiline
fringe of the city. The old provision market of Rome, the Macellum, had
had strong associations with the commercial with luxurious profit-
making freedmen and over-indulgent customers, and the replacement of
part of its district with the new Forum Augustum may have been the
occasion for the new building and its banishment to the fringes of the
city. Roman pragmatic utilitarianism is such a cliché, however, that we
forget to notice the significance that it has in the actions of the first
princeps. Rather than taking it on trust, we should attempt some
explanation of what Augustus’ attitude and intentions may have been in
this field.

To attempt this, we need to move beyond the subject of large-scale

'S’ For Rome’s proastion, Purcell 1987 (F 52); on Agrippa’s work, Roddaz 1984 (c 200) 231-305;
for Nero’s gymnasium, Tamm 1970 (F $91).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 793

public building. Across the years of Augustus’ Principate there are many
other moments at which the affairs of the city as an entity received
deliberate attention. Some such spirit may be discerned in the role played
by Maecenas during Octavian’s absence in the triumviral period and in
the diacheirisis (‘administration’) of the city offered to Agrippa in 21 (Dio
Liv.6.5); and, with greater certainty, in the evolution of a position of city
prefect. During the Cantabrian War Messalla Corvinus took up this
office, which was adapted in typical fashion from the immemorial
practice of appointing a deputy for the consuls when they celebrated the
Latin Festival on the Alban Mount: that he resigned it almost at once
suggests that, for all that, the duties were quite unprecedented (Tac.
Ann. v1.11). The experiment was tried again in 13 B.c. when Statilius
Taurus became prefect, and from then on proved a great success. Like all
Roman ‘administrators’, the city prefects spent most of their working
time in judicial activity, with a particular reference to the unruliness of
life among the urban populace: as Tacitus describes the officer’s brief, he
was ‘a consular who could compel obedience among the slave element
and the part of the citizen body which had the nerve to be riotous if there
were no risk’.16

This involved the management of military personnel. As Ulpian,
writing in the third century on the duties of the city prefect, puts it (Dig.
1,12.1.12) ‘he often has to maintain soldiers on guard-duty to preserve
quiet among the populares and for keeping him informed about what is
happening where’. If there was a ‘revolution’ in the way Augustus ran
Rome, it was in the making available to the relevant magistrates a larger
and better organized body of manpower than had been available before.
This transformed the executive capacity of the state in the city, even if the
efficiency of the decision-makers was not particularly enhanced. Tradi-
tionally, the executive resources of the magistrates were limited to their
apparitores and personal dependents; there are signs that Augustus left
his mark on the decurial system by which these staffs were organized. But
it was in the imposition on Rome of military units, the 1,500 men of the
three cohortes urbanae, associated with the city prefect, and the cohortes
praetoriae responsible directly to the princeps and, until Sejanus had built
the great fortress on the Viminal outside the City, billeted around the
urban area, that the revolution was really effected. The sources for the
history of the early Empire time and again display these soldiers as the
principal agents of state authority. An important side-effect of the
establishment of these cohorts was to provide a prestigious channel by
which Italians might move to Rome and rise in the social scale, a

16 For the urban prefect, see Vitucci 1956 (£ 136). Police duties, Nippel 1988 (a 71); Echols
1957-8 (p 187). Urban violence under the Principate: Moeller 1970 (c 376).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

794 Ij. ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

formalization of acommon social pattern which was already in existence.
Scores of thousands of Italians came to experience the life of Rome and
convey its tendencies to their home towns through this machinery.17

Similar in its effects was the establishment of the city watch, the cohortes
vigilum, by aseries of steps which started with a force of 600 slaves set up
in 22 B.c., when Augustus was surveying the city with a censor’s eye
(Dio trv.2.3) and which were complete at a strength of 3,920 men by A.D.
55. Fire prevention, by means of brute force rather than technology,
through the destruction of Rome’s flimsy structures in the path of the
fire with hooks and levers, was their principal duty. They were also,
importantly, of help in maintaining order in other ways. Again, their
praefectus came to play an increasing part in the running of the city; he too
became a judge with considerable competence. Recruitment to the vigéles,
limited as it was at first to the freedman population (later it rose in social
prestige), also played an important part in the society of the city.18

The same spirit of the organization of manpower can also be seen in
the regulation of the private familia owned by Agrippa for the mainten-
ance of the aqueducts in 11 B.C. as a public institution. Further, the
changes which we can dimly perceive in the management of the collegium
fabrorum tignuariorum, the association of the building industry in Rome,
may belong in this context. They adopted a parapolitical structure of
some elaboration, and their own era dating from 7 B.c.; a parallel also for
the organization of the city districts which is discussed below.!?

The first sign that Augustus would involve himself in the running of
the city was his tackling the question of corn distribution and the annona
in 22 B.c. Here he had Pompey’s precedent clearly behind him.” But
most of the changes came in the decade after his return from Gaul and led
up to the triumphant moment when he opened the Forum Augustum
and was declared pater patriae, in 2 B.c. We find the senatusconsultum on the
aqueducts in 11; an innovatory series of procedures for defining and
maintaining the banks of the Tiber; concern for other public boundaries,
and for the management of roads; the first establishment of the vigi/es; the
division of the city into fourteen regiones in 7 B.c., when the reform of the
compita and vici which formed the smaller subdivisions of the city also
took place. Also from that moment attention was paid to the boundary
of the city, resulting in the ornamental rebuilding of the ancient city
gates, though it probably did not involve a ritual extension of the sacred
boundary, the pomerium.?|

17 Purcell 1983 (F 49); 1991 for movement to Rome. Durry 1938 (p 185).

18 Reynolds 1926 (£ 108); Rainbird 1986 (£ 104); Freis 1967 (D 190).

'9 Pearse 1976-7 (B 261); Royden 1988 (F 58). 2 Rickman 1980 (E 109) 60-6 and 179-85.

.2t Boatwright 1986 (e 5). City gates: Platner and Ashby 1929 (£ 95) svv. ‘Arcus Crispini et
Lentuli’, ‘Arcus Dolabellae et Silani’; Nash 1968 (£ 87) s.v. ‘Arcus Dolabellae et Silani’, ‘Arcus
Gallieni’.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 795

These changes were not dramatic innovatory reforms based on policy.
They were modified and evolved over the years. The delineation of the
Tiber is a good example. A republican procedure, unused since 54 B.C.,
was deployed by the consuls in 8 B.c. and in 7 B.c. by Augustus himself;
in A.D. 15 Tiberius changed the system again, with the appointment of a
permanent board of curatores on the model of the body which saw to the
aqueducts.” So these urban decisions are a matter of trial and error, but
they do clearly have a general coherence, chronologically, and in that
they all concern the good order of the city itself.

The wishes of the inhabitants of Rome were not without their political
significance as Augustus knew from his experience of the triumviral
period: it was amply confirmed. It may have been unwise for him to
absent himself from the city so much in the years 27-24; certainly
violence continued throughout the period, reaching a peak in 22, when
the Senate was barricaded inside the Curia, and was not just a response to
the natural disasters of famine, fire, pestilence and flood (see especially
Dio LII1.3 3.4-5; LIv.1.1-2). The affection and favour of the people gave
one Egnatius Rufus the base from which to attempt an illegal transfer
from being praetor to the consulship in 19 B.c. His benefaction had been
a successful fire-fighting programme, and he was only suppressed with
difficulty.23 Again in a.D. 6 the activities of P. Plautius Rufus, who built
on the miseries of the people from famine and fire with a revolutionary
pamphlet campaign, clearly constituted a serious political threat to the
regime (Dio Lv.27.1—3; Suet. Aug. 19). Not surprisingly, there is a clear
link between particular crises and the various stages of Augustus’
evolving solutions — impetus from outside was the normal source of
governmental action in Antiquity. But Augustus’ pose as the heir of
Caesar — and indeed, by the time his Principate was at an end, of Clodius
too — was relatively tardy compared to the vigour with which he
cornered the market in military gloria, stabilizing legislation, and
traditional pietas. So although his attention to the affairs of the city was
not without its prudential, straightforwardly political aspect, we need
not take such an attitude to be central to Augustus’ response.

The tone of our principal sources for Augustus’ activity, the Res
Gestae, Suetonius and Dio, suggests that some ideal for the correct
presentation of the city and its inhabitants was behind Augustus’
measures — a general cura Urbis as it had come to be formulated by the end
of the Republic. Augustus’ boast about brick and marble has more to do
with the overall effect of the changes which he had made at Rome than
with the creation of individual triumphal monumenta, however spectacu-
lar. And considering what was available, the sumptuous regal display of
individual magnificence was not at the centre of Augustan building

2 Le Gall 1953 (E 73). 2% Lacey 1985 (c 150); for famine, Garnsey 1988 (A 33) 218-22.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

796 Ij. ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

projects after the middle of the twenties B.c. Instead there is a sense of
decency and good order and good government, of responsibility,
tidiness and justice about the new arrangements, which is reminiscent of
the prescriptions of Cicero about how a city should be managed, and
indeed has a long literary tradition. There is a flavour of the administra-
tive sections of the Aristotelian Constitution of Athens in the care taken to
distribute duties among competent authorities, and the same language of
good public order and the right kind of official to maintain it is
prominent in the descriptions of cities across the empire by Augustus’
younger contemporary Strabo. The advantage of seeking such a back-
ground to the ‘administrative reforms’ of Augustus is that it saves us
from the implausibility of attributing to Augustus either a reformer’s
zeal for anew policy, of which otherwise both he and his successors can
be seen to have been almost entirely in default, or the intention of
establishing a bureaucratic apparatus for solving technical organiza-
tional problems which seems on the evidence of the experience of the
next hundred years to have been — if that were its aim —a singular failure,
and which would also, in any case, be hard to parallel in the ancient
world. And instead of this isolated specimen of bureaucratic creativity,
hard to swallow and digest, we get a glimpse of a coherent, if rather
optimistic, attitude to what befits a city which rules the world in the
setting which Augustus had created for it.?4

It is most important to this argument not to separate the ‘hardware’ of
aqueducts and river banks and fire prevention from the people who
moved in and around it. The remodelling of the res publica, moreover,
had to include the popu/us and so could not avoid a social dimension:
Augustus’ Roman legislation concerned both the city and its inhabitants,
and the regulations on manumission and the duties of the freedman
should be seen alongside not just the corn distributions but also the
maintenance of the roads, the laws on the height of buildings, and the
provision of public spectacles. The intention was decency in behaviour
and setting for the citizen of Rome, whose correct physical place in the
polity on display in the theatres was laid down by the /ex Iulia theatralis,
and whose entitlement to the pleasures and conveniences and rights of a
citizen of Rome was publicly to be made plain by the wearing of the
toga.2> This is why the burden of the Augustan legislation fell most
heavily on the freedmen whose presence and activities actually made
Rome what it was. We do not have to assume a long-lasting free poor to

2% Purcell 1986 (D 107), for the assumptions of ancient administration; also Nicolet 1988 (a 69)
advocating a much more positive view of the possibilities of ancient bureaucracy. Note that the
benefits could, in general, be taxable; revenue was raised from Rome under the Empire in significant
quantities, Le Gall 1979 (D 142).

23 Rawson 1987 (F 56). By a noteworthy development, as the citizenship spread, the toga seems to
have become characteristic of Roman citizens at Rome, and declined elsewhere: Mart. x.47.5; 51.6.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 797

whom Augustus was showing favour, while the /iberti were systemati-
cally coerced. The p/ebs ingenua of one generation derived from the plebs
libertina of previous ones. The city population was in many ways the plebs
libertina; the freeborn poor were despised as regularly and thoroughly by
the Roman elite; and the largesses, the entertainments, the paramilitary
garrison, the correct definition of public and private land, the water
supply and the rules and privileges of the magistri vicorum were all part of
a single attitude of defining how the Urbs and its people should best
comport themselves. The ‘Relief of the Vicomagistri’, with the four
magistri in charge of a city-district, in the shorter clothing (sto/ae) which
shows their lowly status, self-consciously clutching the /ares of their
street in religious conclave with the group of aloof senators in their full
togas, is the monument of this age.26

The populace was not entirely mute. From its expressive moments in
the time of troubles a tradition of involvement in the doings of the elite
continues through, and indeed does much to characterize, the whole
Julio-Claudian period. Some have, however, argued powerfully to the
contrary. ‘The populus, decimated or terror-stricken, had disappeared in
the whirlwind of civil war. All that was left were power-obsessed leaders
on the one hand and a brutish multitude on the other, the centurion’s
sword and the irrational hero-worship of the urban plebs. Rome had
already become the Empire.’2’ A city is people, not architecture; was
Rome transformed in the terms of this ringing description during the
Augustan age, or are there rather more continuities than historians of the
Republic, gloomy about the demise of the institutions of liberty,
traditionally accept?

Those who have wished to make the fall of the Republic the turning-
point also of the history of the p/ebs Romana have usually done so for two
reasons. The first is the ‘golden age’ view that there was at some stage in
Roman history a moment when ‘none was for a party; then all were for
the State; then the rich man helped the poor and the poor man loved the
great’. Even the ‘revolution of violence’ which the ancient historiogra-
phical tradition saw in the age of the Gracchi is mostly a construct of that
tradition, and in any case is the result of change in the behaviour of the
elite, not in that of the populace at large. As far back as our meagre
evidence can be made to extend, we find the two salient characteristics of
the life of the city, first the instability and insecurity in the precarious and
passionate life of the urban nucleus caused by the constant process of
exchange by which families and individuals on short and long time-
scales moved in and out of Rome, and second the immemorial paradox
between the constitutional inferiority which guaranteed the domination

2% Freedmen in Augustan Rome: Treggiari 1969 (F 68) 73-6; 244-5.
77 Nicolet 1980 (A 68) 352.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

798 Ij. ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

of the oligarchy and a real tradition of free expression, political
engagement and actual practical influence. To this second tense dialogue
the forms of personal power enshrined in the practice of the Principate
were not alien; it made all the difference in the world to a junior patrician
senator if the greatest men in the state had the position of Augustus or
Vespasian rather than that of Cicero or Scipio Aemilianus; to the men
and women of the Roman street the difference was much less palpable.”8

The second ingredient in the traditional view of the final elimination
of some democratic tradition is the constitutional moment at which the
comitia centuriata were deprived of the reality of their electoral activity,
directly after the accession of Tiberius in a.p. 14 (Tac. Aan. 1.15, cf. 81).
This must be taken seriously: it was not a cosmetic change, a procedural
recognition of a long-established reality. Augustus had found it necess-
ary to enact legislation against ambitus; Caligula (Dio L1x.20.3) found it at
least symbolically eloquent to reverse the change which ushered in the
sole Principate of Tiberius. The process of election was not abolished; it
was formally continued in the senate-house and a strong element of
competition remained.29 The comitia centuriata, moreover, continued to
meet in the Saepta Iulia on the Campus Martius; their activities
maintained some political consciousness of a constitutional kind, to
judge by the association of Sejanus with an irregular assembly of some
kind in the stone record of a speech to an assembly of the tribes (ILS
6044). Whether it is correct to see in Julio-Claudian times a surviving
thread of public political behaviour which can be associated with the
programmes of the populares of the end of the Republic remains
uncertain. Certainly the behaviour of the supporters and opponents of
Tiberius seems quite frequently to have a nuance which derives from the
thought-world of that epoch.» It is hard not to see the move of A.D. 14
alongside the various other attempts by which Tiberius seems to have
been determined to enhance the standing of the Senate and senators in
the polity, and to read it asa judgment that the electoral function was too
important for the crude and foreign plebs to be involved in.

To that extent, then, this is indeed the moment at which the Senate
finally won the age-old ‘struggle of the orders’. However, although the
comitia centuriata had represented power for the small groups who
dominated it, and provided a spectacular opportunity for the display of
popular enthusiasm and dislike through less organized means than the

% Finley 1983 (a 28) 51-3 on the ‘end of politics’.

29 Elections under the Principate: Talbert 1984 (D 77) 341-5.

3 Levick 1976 (c 366) 37-42. We may note also that the plebeian violence in a.p. 6 almost
constituted popular revolution, if we are to credit the language of Dio Lv.27. 1-3. Ov. Fast. 11.527-
32 suggests that some truly archaic elements in the Roman constitution (the cxriae) were no longer
understood. Nicolet 1980 (a 68) 313-15; T. Siarensis. ILS 6049 shows the tribal structure being
deployed to celebrate Vespasian’s first adventus at Rome.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 799

vote, it had rarely been a means of effective participation in politics for
the plebs. Moreover, that informal participation survived, since the
comitia continued to meet — hence one aspect of the Sejanus affair. Indeed
it not only survived, it burgeoned. Enactments, to give one example, of
A.D. 5, 19 and 21 — before and after, that is, the movement of the voting
part of the election to the Senate — gave the display of favour by the
thirty-five tribes at these occasions a respectable institutional link with
the ordines of equites and senators, and a symbolic link with the fortunes of
the domus Caesarum in the creation of centuriae linked with the names of
the untimely dead of Augustus’ household.*! As late as a.pD. 69 it was
expedient for an emperor to proclaim the unity of Senate and plebs in
supporting him at a formal contio (Tacitus Hist. 1.90.2). Maybe this
worked too well: in A.D. 29 Tiberius had to respond with an edict to the
agitation of the plebs on behalf of their imperial favourites, the family of
Germanicus. Illicit contiones, like the public meetings of the past, were
happening, and the princeps had to claim to the Senate that ‘his majesty as
imperator was mocked’ (Tac. Amn. v.4—-5, ‘imperatoria maiestas elusa’).
No mean success for the people.

The coming of the Principate enabled the personal attachments of the
populace to become more stable and more deeply felt, richer as they were
in raw material. So it is that, for example, the women of the domus
Caesarum came to play a prominent part in the relationship between
establishment and urban populace. The standing of Livia, the Iuliae, or
Antonia or Claudius’ daughters in the public eye is a phenomenon which
could only be dimly foreshadowed in the Republic.*2 Similarly, the
admiration felt and vigorously expressed for Gaius Caesar, Germanicus
or Britannicus gives the impression of constituting a more developed
personality-cult than the equivalent in the last years of the Republic; the
projection of the personalities of the Principate offered new opportuni-
ties for the allegiance and disapproval of the urban populace which were
abundantly taken up. The metaphor of language is a helpful one for the
range of exchanges possible between the plebs and the rulers of Rome;
with the Augustan Principate the richness and flexibility of that language
became greater than it ever had been before.%3

This process was closely linked with the steps which Augustus took to
appropriate for himself the topography of the city, through the architec-
tural initiatives which we have examined; and the chronology of the res

publica, through his manipulation of the notion of history and, most
important, of the passage of the months and years. The Roman calendar,

31 Levick 1976 (c 366); Holladay 1978 (c 356); Brunt 1961(c 47).

32 Flory 1984 (F 366); Purcell 1986 (F 50).

3 In general, Yavetz 1969 (A 110); for messages about Rome’s place in the world, Nicolet 1988 (A
69) esp. chs. 1, 2, §, 9; also 1980 (A 68) 383-98.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

800 15. ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

with its slow progression of measured feasts and rites moving through
the seasons and processionally among the temples and sacred places of
the city and its neighbourhood, and recapitulating the progression of
Rome’s history, triumphs, deliveries and commemorations, as it did so,
offered a wonderful opportunity for the self-presentation of the princeps
and his family, and for the involvement of the populace. Caesar had done
some exploration in this area, but the real harnessing of the potential of
the calendars is an Augustan phenomenon. The great moments in the
rise of Octavian to power, the dates of his life and career, the significant
moments in his rule and in the lives of his relatives are inserted through
the calendars first into the history of Rome, second into the divine life of
the city — and we need postulate no cynicism on the part of Augustus and
his advisers — third into the space of the town, with temples, altars,
arches and statues, and fourth, and most relevant to our theme here, into
the daily, yearly experience of the ordinary populace. So well did he
succeed that the Feriae Augustae, the greatest dynastic feast of all, were
still distracting the Romans from their Christian duties in the summer in
the eighth century, and even though the feast has in an effort to clean it
up since been postponed a fortnight and made to celebrate the Assump-
tion, its name at least still remains, Ferragosto, the summer festival of
Rome today.*

In the sections that follow we shall explore in more detail the nature of
the ‘occasions’ which received their significance from being included in
the Fasti. How did they provide a setting for dialogue between the
princeps and the people? And what was the nature of the exchange and
what its purpose? Let us begin with the ‘purely religious’.

There has been an unfortunate tendency to omit the observance of
public religious rites when considering the activities of the first principes,
perhaps fuelled by a suspicion that such observance was somehow a
sham, a perfunctory obedience to tradition. This is not the place to
scrutinize the practicality of assessing the theological orientations of the
Roman elite; it is enough to insist that the amount of time devoted to
public cult by the primores at Rome was considerable, and that this
provided the centre of the visibility of these people to the population of
the city at large. Much of the activity was routine, and only finds mention
in the sources when it was made singular by some other occurrence or
observation. Augustus had a habit of sleeping at a friend’s house as near
as possible to the scene of a religious ceremony which involved a dawn
start, because he disliked early rising (Suet. Aug. 78); on the morning of
his assassination Gaius had just happened to be sacrificing a flamingo
(Suet. Calig. 57) when he was splashed with blood; Claudius performed
obsecratio in the Forum Romanum to counter ill omen in a ceremony

4 Liebeschuetz 1979 (F 174) 79-81; Price 1996 (F 201).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 801

which we are explicitly told involved the populus, though the princeps felt
it proper to exclude the ‘herd of artisans and slaves’ (Suet. C/aud. 22); the
omen of Galba’s fall (Suet. Ga/ba 18-19) involved a whole set of public
religious acts all of which were clearly closely scrutinized for the kind of
significant accident that did in fact occur ~ as when on New Year’s Day
69 his garland fell off during the sacrifice and the sacred chickens flew
away as he took the auspices. Not only did these activities inevitably take
up a considerable amount of the emperor’s time and attention; but they
are, more importantly, part of a continuous dialectic of interpretation
between actor and audience, both parties explaining and expounding the
meaning they prefer in the unfolding interplay of casual circumstances
and prescribed cultic behaviour. It is necessary to insist that these
exchanges are indeed mutual. If we had only the literary evidence we
might, odd as it would seem, see the religious acts of the elite as mindless
posturing and inane traditionalism. But the reciprocity is very clear from
the evidence of epigraphy and archaeology. The altars, the statues, the
ex-votos, the buildings, offered by a very wide range of Romans, are the
contribution made by the audience to the exchange, an assurance of
complicity, engagement and loyalty to the relationship, a loyalty which
far transcends mere political obedience.*5

The dialogue of public religion is the matrix which held together the
highly disparate elements of Roman society; I cannot establish that this
entails theological sincerity, but the dialogue very certainly mattered.

The religion of the city was quite literally urban: bridges, slopes,
statues, fountains and especially crossroads had their appropriate rites.
In 7 B.c. Augustus reconsidered the oppressive legislation which had
controlled the activities of the local assemblies which practised these
rites and celebrations — the ‘uncountable associations cobbled together
from all the filth and slavery of the city’, as Cicero had called them (Pis.
9). Magistriand ministri of the crossroads cults of each of the two or three
hundred vis or local districts of Rome were now regularly appointed; the
games which they performed were made legal again; the moment was
given historic recognition by the establishment of an era which began
with the measure of 7 B.c.; imperial generosity provided decoration for
the shrines from the loot of Greece, Apollo the Sandalmaker and — well-
suited to the voluptates of the people — Jupiter the Tragic Actor (Suet.
Aug. 57). The magistri were suitably inspired. Smart new sace//a in the
latest taste for the /ares of each district rose over the next years, the
dedication-inscriptions reflecting the sincere blend of old and new and
the combination of real religiosity with a sense of the civically appropri-
ate: “To Mercury, to the eternal God Jupiter, to Juno the Queen, to
Minerva; to the Sun, the Moon, Apollo and Diana; to [Anno]na, Ops,

35 Examples: Zanker 1988 (F 633) chs. 6-8.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

802 15. ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

Isis and Pietas; to the Divine Fates: that it may go well, propitiously and
prosperously for Imperator Caesar Augustus, for his [power] and that of
the Senate and People of Rome, and for the Nations, at the propitious
beginning of the consular year of Gaius Caesar and Lucius Paullus [a.p.
1] — Lucius Lucretius Zethus, Lucius’ freedman, dedicated this Augus-
tan Altar at the command of Jupiter. Victory of the People! Health in
Seed-sowing!’ The Augustan religious changes were no sterile revival-
ism, but a part of the adaptability and creativity inherent in Roman
religion.?” On a more informal level the inscriptions of Rome show us
how tutelary divinities were found for other new arrivals in the urban
landscape as the imperial benefactions and building-projects progressed;
the Bona Dea Veneris Cnidiae ‘Good Goddess of the Venus of Cnidus’,
that statue being a well-known imported masterpiece, is a nice example.
The Genius of the Corn Warehouses of Galba and the Venus of the
Gardens of Sallust are further cases of how traditional responses were
made to the new imperial complexes as much as to the tangled matrix of
the unreformed city. “You believe that there are gods to the places in the
city - or even that the places themselves are gods’, a critic of paganism
was to say (Tert. Ad. Nat. 2.15).

Similarly, the new institutions of the imperial house were inserted into
the traditional repertoire of Roman religiosity. The creation of the
sacerdotium sodalium Augustalium on the model of the Titiales (Tac. Ann
1.54) in A.D. 14 did this at the top end of the social spectrum, interestingly
adapting for the senatorial and equestrian elite a title which had already
become current (at least since the last decade B.c.) among the poorer
inhabitants, especially freedmen, of the Italian towns. The association of
the ordines with the transformed state cult cannot, despite an influential
view, be held to have excluded the poor and opened the way to religious
influence from outside Italy. The new observances were important to the
plebs too.*® Nor was this limited to the self-consciously plebeian
occasion like the compitalia: we should take into account also such
occasions as their /udi founded by Livia within the familia Caesaris to
commemorate Augustus, at which buffoons and actors performed, as
much as on the great public occasions. Across the world of the Roman
spectacles, the boundary between the religious and the entertaining
cannot be clearly drawn by us any more than it could have been by the
Romans themselves.

Augustus had been careful to involve the populus in the /udi saeculares,
whose prescriptions ordain various forms of participation; but it need

% CIL vi 30705 =ILS 3090; Niebling 1956 (F 190); Boyancé 1950 (z 8). For Salus cf. Macrob.
Sat. 1.16.8 ‘Salutem Semoniam Seiam Segetiam Tutilinam’. On the compita see also Liebeschuetz
1979 (F 174) 70-1, and for the Augustan shrines to the /ares, Ladage 1980 (F 42).

37 North 1976 (F 194); North 1986 (F 195). 38 Altheim 1938 (F 84) 4336.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 803

not be thought that this was unusual. The people were an important
agent in Roman religion, not a passive congregation. The spates of
individual vofa and sacrifices which marked special occasions — such as
the 890 days of obsecrationes decreed by the Senate for Augustus (RG 4) —
are examples of this participation: and the involvement of the audience in
the /udi is part of the same phenomenon. Thus the various expressions of
opinion and demonstrations of disapproval or loyalty with which the
audience in the theatre or the amphitheatre interrupted and adapted the
words of the performers are not to be seen as a breaking for political
purposes of a polite formal barrier of decorum between stage and cavea,
but as part of a relationship of communication which goes both ways.

The presence of the populus Romanus at public spectacles, as at other
religious rites, constituted a civic assembly. Ovid describes a popular rite
in terms deliberately chosen to evoke the simple homespun life of Rome
before its urban fabric grew so complex and monumental; ‘On the ides of
March is the jolly festival of Anna Perenna, above Rome and the Tiber
and not far away from its bank. The populace comes and drinks,
scattered at ease among the herbage, each person reclining with his
partner. Some hold out in the open, a few set up tents, some build a
bough-house out of branches, others use giant reed for stiff columns and
stretch out their togas on top. Whatever they do, the sun and the wine
heat them up... they sing all that they have picked up in the theatres and
mime uninhibitedly along with the words’ (Fast. 111.523-42). The
displays which the upper-class authors deride as the vo/uptates of the
populace were embellishments of simpler festivals, given to show the
status of donor and beneficiary. This is more easily seen if the other
aspect of the religious assembly, the communal meal, is compared. These
meals had increased in popularity in the late Republic (Varro, Rusé.
I11.2.16), especially in the context of the triumphs of the dynasts. They
were the object of censorial control by Augustus in 22 B.c. (Dio Liv.2.3),
and became a monopoly of the princeps: as such they became a familiar
part of life in Rome:

iam se, quisquis is est, inops, beatus,
convivam ducis esse gloriatur.

whoever he is, poor but happy, his boast is that he has been the guest of
our Leader.
(Stat. Silv. 1.6.44-50)°9

The porticus-architecture which was described above owes something to
the need to be able to accommodate such occasions.

* For banqueting, D’Arms 1990 (F 24); Mrozek 1972 (F 46). For the ‘associative urge’ among
inhabitants of Rome, cf. CAH 1x?, 671ff and Flambard 1981 (F 30).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

804 Ig. ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

The spectacula likewise demanded more and more lavish settings: even
when such buildings were temporary they could be fantastically extrava-
gant, like the theatre built by Aemilius Scaurus as aedile in 58 B.c. The
great sequence of permanent structures — Pompey’s Theatre, Caesar’s
Circus Maximus, the Theatre of Marcellus, and that of Balbus, Augus-
tus’ naumachia and Statilius Taurus’ Amphitheatre, Gaius’ Circus Vatica-
nus, Nero’s Amphitheatre, Vespasian’s greater Flavian Amphitheatre,
Domitian’s Odeon and Hippodrome, and Trajan’s Circus Maximus — is a
vivid reflection of the process.“

These buildings, above all the theatres, were political buildings as they
had always been in the Hellenic world. To have statues or dedications in
the theatres was a rare sign of achievement (cf. Tac. Amn. 1v.7). This
political life of the theatres was one of the many inheritances of Rome
from Campania where urban politics had long been volatile and
permanent buildings for both theatrical and gladiatorial spectacles were
part of the repertoire of public architecture. The Romans were well
aware of the resemblances between the orator’s address in the Forum,
the priest’s sacred activity in the sanctuary, and the actor’s performance
on the stage — all witnessed and shared in by thousands of observers. We
can set the long hostility towards permanent theatres, and towards
providing seats at the spectacula, beside the great length of time it took
before the comitia were given a permanent architectural setting — on the
eve of their electoral emasculation.*! The long series of responses to
‘theatralis licentia’ and ‘immodestia histrionum’ — expulsions, military
presence, executions, prohibitions, warnings — should be compared with
the ever vigorous campaign against the involvement of the men and
women of the senatorial and equestrian orders in the performance of
Spectacula, which proves conclusively how much they wanted to be
involved, and what was at stake. These occasions are not outlets, faute de
mieux, for repressed political activity: the old formal political acts had
been a single facet of an age-old political tradition which continued
fervently and wildly in the public life of the face-to-face society. Indeed,
when the relatively restrained formal politics of the Senate became
completely overshadowed by Augustus’ novus status, plebs and elite alike
found an outlet for their various anti-establishment feelings in an
expansion of the politics of the spectacle.42 Finally, we may observe that
the princeps himself constituted one of the main objects of spectacle; at
triumphs, the formal entrances and exits from the city, and going about

© Spectacle-architecture, Frézouls 1984 (F 31), Humphrey 1986 (F 427), Rawson 1985 (F 55),
Gros 1978 (F 398); Clavel-Lévéque 1984 (F 17).

“1 Cf. Coarelli 1985 (£ 19) 11 11-21; Gros 1987 (F 399)-

42 Bollinger 1969 (F 8); cf. Levick 1983 (c 369).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 805

his daily business — or in attendance at other shows, himself nominally in
the audience, but in reality an actor among actors.

There is no need here to rehearse the very long list of examples of the
responses of emperors to the people at the games. Three typical examples
are: the attack on Pompey by Diphilus in July 59 3.c. when the crowd
took up the line ‘it is by our wretchedness that thou art Great’; the
moment when the audience mocked Galba by singing over and over
again the passage from the Atellan farce ‘Onesimus has come in from the
country’; and, most memorably of all, the pastiche with which Datus the
actor joked about Nero’s murders of Claudius and Agrippina.# It would
be wrong to take these as some form of resistance, as ‘demonstrations’ in
the modern sense. Certainly the extent to which they were organized by
the elite as deliberate disruptions must have been minimal — the
difficulties would have been enormous, though we do hear of the
managers of claques, like Percennius who fomented the Pannonian
mutiny in A.D. 14. More importantly the absence of political pro-
grammes even among the elite will have made it more difficult to build
up continuous agitation: high politics were too mutable. On a more
general level some perennial preferences and distastes there were, which
are examined below, both the ‘political’ and the more selfish. But it is not
enough to regard the urban populace as ‘primitive rebels’ living ‘in an
odd relationship with its rulers, equally compounded of parasitism and
riot’. It is noteworthy that the poor of the city do not seem to have
developed a counter-culture of the sort found in the Islamic cities of the
Middle Ages, rich in criminal confraternities. The activities of the
populares which the city prefect had to watch so carefully (above, p. 793)
were very closely related to the legitimate forms of behaviour of the
political elite.“

This is because the plebs was not parasitic; and its violence was not
solely devoted to attaining selfish ends. The plebs was not wholly or
even mostly dependent on state-managed largesse. Its economy was
more vigorous than that. The benefits which the plebeians enjoyed were
not charity to keep them alive, but a bonus to denote their status. Part of
that status-symbolism was a degree of political licence, which stood
beside the lavishness of the games and the grandeur of the buildings. The
survival of that licence did credit to the princeps too, and was one of the
elements in the presentation of Rome to the rest of the world as its

“3 Cameron 1976 (F 16); Millar 1977 (A $9) 368-75; Yavetz 1969 (A 110); Deininger 1979 (E£ 33);
Kloft 1970 (p 138).

“ Hobsbawm 1973; C. E. Bosworth The Medieval Islamic Underworld (Leiden, 1976) for the Islamic
underworld. On the close cultural identification of plebeians and elite, cf. Jongman 1988 (z 62)
275-329.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

806 15. ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

uniquely favoured capital.*5 In return it elevated the emperor who could
manage the relationship high on a wave of hysterical popularity which
could not be managed anywhere else. But the violence of the invective
and the cruelty of the wit involved in the exchange alongside the
popularity are not wholly negative; there is an atmosphere of the licensed
jester about the relationship, a curious pleasure in the luxury of being
powerful enough not to need to mind or be diminished by scurrilous
attacks. The anonymous buffoon who described himself on his tomb as
‘in words and in dumb-play a mime of the emperor Tiberius; the man
who first discovered the trick of imitating barristers’ (ILS 5225) may
have operated ‘underground’ but it is more likely that his art was part of
the world of modish inversion and peculiar paradox which the elite of
the Julio-Claudian empire found the height of luxury.6 The emperors
periodically found that the attacks had gone too far; but although some
performers therefore suffered, their like remained a permanent part of
the inevitable relationship of emperor with people in the gloriously
hectic atmosphere of the most populous place in the world.

Within the phenomenon of this freedom of utterance various strands
can be isolated. A consciousness of the tone of the political world of the
elite is one: hostility to conspirators and traitors, and also to the.de/atores,
or to individuals like the praetorian prefect Cleander under Commodus,
is conspicuous. We are reminded that other senators and equites had
public roles to play too; it will not do to represent the politics of Rome as
being just a dialogue between plebs and princeps. The insecurity and
danger of the political elite were things of which the populace was aware.
Still more do they have a sense of the wrongs of the imperial family itself;
the imperial women, above all, were objects of general affection and
sympathy. Already we find the crowd in the Forum making it impossible
for the triumvirs to reject the daring protest of Hortensia against an
attempt to distrain on the resources of the noblest and richest women of
the state (App. BC rv.5.32-4; Val. Max. viir.3.3). Their affection for
Augustus’ daughter and granddaughter is also very striking, and
perhaps not wholly to be explained by the cévi/stas and popularity of their
male relatives. For if Agrippina the elder gained in favour by association
with her husband, and she was certainly highly popular, it is hard to
explain politically the touching sympathy of the plebs for the tragic fate
of Nero’s wife, Claudius’ daughter Octavia: Tacitus (Ann. x1v.60—-4)
recounts their dismay at the princeps’ dismissal of her, and their
enthusiastic response to the false rumour that he had changed his mind.

45 On the ideology of civilitas, Wallace-Hadrill 1982 (D 21).

% Roueché 1984 (B 277) 184, for imperial acclamations; cf. CIL 1v 1074, a graffito ‘iudiciis
Augusti Augustae feliciter!’ Note also the performance of the archinrimus Favor at Vespasian’s
funeral (Suet. Vesp. 19.2).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 807

‘They rushed to climb the Capitol without delay, and — belatedly — gave
worship to the gods. Down they threw the statues of Poppaea; those of
Octavia, borne shoulder-high, they decked with flowers and set up in
Forum and temples’. The agitation was serious enough to provide
Octavia’s enemies with a believable case that her continued liberty and
presence in Italy was a perpetual threat of civil war; at the same time, we
are told, claiming that the rioting had been the work of ‘clients and slaves
of Octavia arrogating to themselves the name of plebs’. There was
indeed a real political component: the plebeians who shouted Nero’s
praises in 68 when he made his grand return to Rome from his Greek
tour, demolishing the city wall to enter a city garlanded and full of lamps
and incense (Dio Lx11.20.4), in only months were joining in the round of
hysterical sacrifice and merrymaking, dressed in caps of liberty like freed
slaves, to commemorate his suicide (sid. Lxt1I.29.1). Within a year
50,000 had died in the civil war which ensued (sbi. LXIV.19.3).

In the end much of this popular feeling proceeds from the complex
self-presentation of the domus Caesarum which we examined above; but
this ingredient of sympathy for the underdog, the young and the
helpless, with its sentimental flavour, is something separate. Marcus
Oppius, who saved his father’s life during the proscriptions, had been
elected aedile in 37 B.c. on the wave of public approval, which even
collected contributions to allow him to bear the expense. A group of
wanted malefactors put on masks and made a theatre-show of adding
their bit to the whip-round, in a revealingly dramatic and public way
(Dio xLvu1.5 3.4). When Oppius died and was lionized even in death the
Senate responded with significant spite. There are various other cases;
we might cite the ‘assembly of plebeians which verged ona riot’ which
formed to show solidarity with the condemned household of Pedanius
Secundus, doomed because he had been murdered by a slave (Tac. Aan.
xIv.42) or the pity they felt for elephants because of their appealing tricks
in the arena on another well-known occasion. In a.p. 24 popular
violence prevented a well-known prosecutor from proceeding with a
case against his father (Ann. Iv.29).

The plebs could also show conspicuous favour to the powerful, but
that is less surprising. In one memorable instance, their humorous
sentimentality combined with their loyalty to the domus Caesarum.
‘Crows too have their share of esteem, as has been demonstrated by the
moral attitude of the Roman plebs, or rather by their outrage. During the
reign of Tiberius a young crow, hatched in a nest in the temple of Castor
and Pollux, flew down toa cobbler’s opposite, in the process winning the
owner’s approval, apart from anything else, as a religious bird. The crow
quickly became familiar with human discourse, and every morning
would fly along the Forum to the rostra, and would greet first Tiberius

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

808 15. ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

and then Drusus and Germanicus by name, and then the generality of the
Roman crowd passing by. It would then return to the shop. The tenant
of the next cobbler’s, as ever jealous of his neighbour, or, as he preferred
to put it, incensed by the droppings which stained the shoes he put out
on display, killed the bird. The plebs went wild. The man was hustled
out of the regio and before long made away with; for the fowl a funeral
was put on with the most enormous elaboration, the bier decked out and
carried between two negroes, with a flute player walking in front,
garlands of every kind, all the way to the pyre which they had built at the
second milestone of the Appia in the Campus called that of Rediculus...
this was done on 28 March in a.p. 35” (Pliny, HN x.121f). The public
availability of members of the domus Caesarum — even if, given the date, it
will be their effigies that received this unusual obeisance— is noteworthy.
Germanicus is the prime example of a popular hero, but we may compare
the delirious welcome to Rome of his son Caligula — ‘star’, ‘chicken’,
‘baby’, ‘nurseling’ they called him at his ceremonial arrival in the city, his
adventus ~ and their defensive ‘protection’ of Claudius against his
senatorial opponents. Titus later enjoyed the same approval — ‘shortlast-
ing and ill-omened’ as Tacitus gloomily calls it.

Naturally enough, a strong streak of self-interest can be seen in the
plebs’ attitudes. Concern over prices and the availability of reasonably
priced food — and drink — features prominently. It was the final blow for
Nero’s cause in 68 that a ship containing fine sand for a race-track docked
from Alexandria at a moment when food was low and grain expected.
But the riot over wine-prices which Augustus dismissed (Suet. Aug.
42.1) with an allusion to Agrippa’s aqueducts shows that the demands
are not only about subsistence. While it made economic sense to free
slaves to qualify them for the annona (as in 56 B.c., when Pompey had to
draw up a register of such recipients, Dio xxx1x. 24.1), that did not mean
that a provision for the destitute was being abused. The eager interest in
the availability of comsoda is part of the insatiable quest for the signs of
status to which we have constantly referred and reflects appreciation of
the provision of games, baths, beast-hunts, subsidized food, largesses.
The building projects of the principes were triply useful: as a source of
employment, for what they provided in a practical sense, and as a display
of magnificence.*” We see throughout the imperial period, accordingly, a
steady escalation of the quality of the annonal food distributions and in
the lavishness of the public buildings of the city. As Augustus saw, the
grain dole might not be essential to the survival of the city, and it might
not be a desirable thing to pamper the motley plebs — but even if he

“7 For the commodum of available employment, see Brunt 1980 (D 117). Thornton and Thornton
1989 (F $94) develop the idea of the dependence of the plebs on imperial buildings, but their
quantitative methods are unreliable.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 809

abolished the annona ‘it could at any time be restored through ambitio’
(Suet. Aug. 42.3). Ambitio, the pursuit of political support through the
dealing out of favours, is the key to the world of panem et circenses. The
vast population visible in Rome was the constituency which supported
the early principes. Once they had ensured that they had no rivals in its
support, it provided them, in return for the status their attentions gave it,
with a visible position of ascendancy in the capital of the world which
remained one of the key ingredients in their political position. That that
ascendancy was in some sense freely granted by a free people was an
important myth, because of the Roman past and because of the
sensitivity of the interplay between the notions of freedom and subjec-
tion across the empire as a whole, especially in the East; and it was in the
pursuit of that image of co-operative mutual freedom that the dialogue
between plebs and princeps, with all its seeming disadvantages for the
latter, was allowed to continue, indeed actively encouraged. The plebs
was on display too, and the occasions such as the famous welcome given
to the Armenian king Tiridates were meant to show off not just the
luxury of Nero’s court, which could be done in private, but something
more unusual — the intricacy and reliability of the relationship between
the ruler of the Roman world and the teeming cities of his homeland: the
populousness is part of the point (Dio Lx11.3.4), but the nature of the
relationship, the element of freedom, is also significant.

Cities, not city: it is important to remember that we are in fact not
dealing with just the city of Rome. The social forms characteristic of the
plebs in the first century B.c. had developed in a wide region which
embraced both Rome and the wealthy and populous centres of Campa-
nia, and the milieu continued to exist for a very long time. Nero’s display
for Tiridates began at Puteoli, where Caligula’s extravagant regal
exhibition of a great procession along a temporary bridge across the sea
had also been set. It was in Campania that Tiberius in A.D. 27 was
overwhelmed by the ‘assembling together of the inhabitants of the
cities’, so that he resolved to escape to Capri (Tac. Amn. 1v.67). In the
next year he was visited not just by the Senate but by ‘magna pars plebis’
(Ann. 1v.74). The principes spoke to and reproved, favoured and checked,
the people of these far-flung cities as they did the people gathered in
Rome. An anecdote in Suetonius’ life of Vitellius (12) gives us a glimpse
of how the social contexts intermeshed. Vitellius’ boyfriend and freed-
man Asiaticus decamped from Rome after their first amour and was later
found employed in a cookshop at Puteoli, whence he was forcibly
returned to Rome and his patron’s favours. The audience of the princeps’
display in Campania overlapped considerably with that which he

8 For the display of population see also Mithridates at Tac. Aan. x11.21, or Tiberius on the way to
the tribunal ‘conspicuous for the gathering of people from every side’, Ann. 11.34.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

810 15. ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

addressed in Rome; and the same is true of Ostia from the Julio-Claudian
period on, and throughout of the old seats of Roman vié/leggiatura:
Praeneste, Tibur, Tusculum and Antium. Quite apart from the slow
currents of emigration, the people of our study were prepared to travel
distances which surprise us for entertainment. They were quite at home
throughout the region of the city. In a.p. 69 the populace, in a
characteristic episode, poured out to the north up the Via Flaminia to
meet Vitellius’ legions on their adventus (Tac. Hist. 11.88). At the village
of Saxa Rubra the princeps was treating the army to an epulum, at a safe
distance from the city and with convenient imperial properties provid-
ing the necessary resources. But the plebs could not resist from teasing
the soldiery with its ‘vernacula urbanitas’ and a massacre ensued.
Similarly, the scores of thousands killed or maimed when the amphith-
eatre at Fidenae collapsed in a.p. 22 were not the population of that
dormitory-town of the Urbs (Tac. Amn. 1v.62); and the vast and
disappointed audience of Claudius’ attempt to drain the Fucine Lake did
not derive from the villages and hamlets of the central Apennines (bid.
x1I.56). From Campania the evidence shows clearly that people would go
anywhere in the area for games, from Cumae and Capua to Pompeii and
Nuceria; and on a handy table of market-days from that region all the
local centres, even when they are 65—80 km apart, are present — and so is
Rome itself.49 The nature of the spectacles was to gather people like this;
we have already insisted on the resemblance between the religious
assembly at a spectacle and the political assembly of the same citizen-
body, and it is important to remember that in the background of these
great concourses in Roman Italy lies the dispersed citizen statuses of the
middle Republic and before. Federal assemblies and their religious
aspects underlie many of these imperial institutions, from the gods who
are propitiated to the type of place where the gathering is held. A
calendar of the end of the fourth century a.p. from Capua still shows
how the festivals of the year wandered from significant place to
significant place across the social landscape of the region (ILS 4918).
Nevertheless, the effect of the institution of the Principate was to
increase the privileges of the part of the population which was present in
the vicinity of the city of Rome. The republican aristocracy had spread its
interests widely; the emperors needed an imperial city to be the location
and symbol of their power.% It is not without significance that some at
least thought that they might not choose old Rome for the job, and that
from the second century onwards, they came increasingly to take other
places as their long- or short-term bases. By that time the creation of the

49 Markets: MacMullen 1970 (F 43), quoting [Ital x11 2 (1963) 301-4. The connexion between
markets and religious festivals should also be noted.
5° For the formation of Rome as capital of the world, Nicolet 1988 (a 69); cf. Purcell 1990 (A 77)-

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 811

imperial city was complete, so that many of the effects of the two
centuries which we have been discussing proved remarkably tenacious.
The appearance of the city and the notion of its privileges were two
particularly long-lasting consequences. But the distribution of the
evidence makes it dangerous to assume that the social patterns of the
period from Sulla to Claudius lasted beyond the Severan period. The
examination of Rome in that period and its relations with Italy, when the
princeps was no longer there nearly so much, must be left for another
occasion.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 16

THE PLACE OF RELIGION: ROME
IN THE EARLY EMPIRE

S. R. F. PRICE

Roman religion had always been closely linked with the city of Rome and
its boundaries. The restructuring of a number of religious institutions in
the Augustan period resulted in changes within Rome, and, beyond it, in
the empire. The importance of the religion of place is illustrated by an
episode from Livy’s History of Rome, written in the early 20s B.c. After
the sack of Rome by the Gauls in 390 B.c., there was a proposal that the
Romans should migrate to the newly conquered Veii, rather than rebuild
Rome. Livy put in the mouth of the Roman general Camillus a striking
rejection of this proposal, which emphasized the religious foundation of
the city, the necessity for the ancient cults to be located in Rome, and the
significance of Rome’s sacred boundary, the pomerium (v.52). Camillus’
speech articulated issues of considerable topical importance.' There had
been a fear that Caesar would move the seat of empire from Rome to the
East, a fear that was revived by Antony’s dalliance with Cleopatra.
Augustus, however, was to promote Rome as the capital of the empire.
Camillus’ re-establishment of the ancestral rites neatly foreshadows the
religious activity of Augustus himself and his argument about the
indissoluble ties between Rome and her cults encapsulated the preoccu-
pation of the imperial age with place and the associated issue of
boundaries (see below, Section I).

Stress on the religious site of Rome was not an innovation of the
Augustan age, but it did increase in this period and it formed the content
within which the new political order was placed (see below, Section II).
The Augustan restructuring of the earlier system was represented at the
time as restoration: ancient cults had faded away, temples had fallen
down, priesthoods were vacant. The ‘restoration of the res publica’ by
Augustus necessarily involved ‘restoration of the traditional cults’.
Scholars used to hold that this view was indeed correct: religion, in
decline in the late Republic, was revived under Augustus. They diverged
from the Augustan view in arguing that, as the decline was real, the
revival could be only artificial: meaningful religious energies were
located in other contexts (‘oriental cults’ or, later, Christianity).2 This old

1 Liebeschuetz 1967 (F175). 2 Warde Fowler 1911 (F 233); Latte 1960 (F 170).

812

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE PLACE OF RELIGION 813

orthodoxy now seems very fragile. Religion in the late Republic is best
seen as suffering from disruption, not decline, while preoccupation with
revival ignores the extent of change in the system.> But Augustan stress
on restoration need not be treated as a cunning obfuscation. The age was
fundamentally concerned to relate the present to the past.4

There were also rituals which focused more directly on the emperor
himself, especially after his death. These are normally described as ‘the
imperial cult’, and placed in a separate category from the ‘restoration of
religion’. But if the ‘restoration’ is to be seen as a restructuring around
the person of the emperor, the rituals which alluded more specifically to
him also belong in the context of restructuring (see below, Section III).
Even the apotheosis of the dead emperor may be seen as rooted in
‘tradition’.

The city of Rome also has to be located in the context of the empire
(see below, Section IV). Roman cults were replicated outside Rome, in
Italy and in the provinces in the army and colonies. Though the relations
of the empire to Rome are normally seen in terms of ‘the imperial cult’, it
is again necessary to stress not direct worship of the emperor, but the
range of other Roman cults.5

The social and physical context of the changes in Rome in the
Augustan period merits discussion. Rome was an enormous city, with a
population which may at times have approached 1 million people, and
yet the principal holders of religious offices were members of the Senate,
which numbered around Goo in all. Does this mean that we are dealing
with an official religious system which held no meaning in the popular
religion of the city? In fact, the opposition between ‘official’ and
‘popular’ religion is somewhat deceptive. Official and popular manifes-
tations are simply different aspects, on different levels, of a continuum of
religious institutions and practices. Upper-class leadership does not
mean that the system lacked significance for the lower classes, and we
shall see some signs of the penetration of the Augustan system among
the poorer citizens. But the population of Rome did not consist wholly

3 On the Republic see Scheid 1985 (F 217); North, CAH vi.22, ch. 12; Beard, CAH 1x?, ch. 19.
On the Augustan period see Nock 1934 (F 192). Liebeschuetz 1979 (F 174) 55-100, Kienast 1982 (c
ae feadices to Livy, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. (published in 7 B.c.) is invaluable for its perspective
on the past (cf. Gabba 1982 (B 56); Schultze 1986 (B 161)). Ovid’s Fasti, perhaps composed in a.D. 1—
4 but with later revisions, is a systematic account of the festivals of the first six months of the year.
Despite che existence af two modern commentaries (J. G. Frazer, London 1929; F. Bomer,
Heidelberg, 1958), the poem has been unjustly neglected in religious histories of the period (cf.
however Schilling 1969 (PF 219); Fauth 1978 (F 133)). Most of the relevant inscriptions are in ILS.
Coarelli 1983 (F 116) offers a guide to the archaeological evidence; Nash 1968 (£ 87) illustrates the
major monuments. There are two collections of texts in English translation: Grant 1953 (F 149) and
1957 (F 150); see also M. Beard, J. North and S. Price Religions of Rome 2 (Cambridge, 1966). The

main works of reference are Wissowa 1912 (F 241) and Latte 1960 (F 170).
5 For such cults see Liebeschuetz, CAH x12.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

814 16, THE PLACE OF RELIGION

of Roman citizens. Those of different ethnic groups, including some
freedmen from the East, maintained cults from their places of origin.
(See below, Section V.) However, it is very difficult to see how far the
lower classes drew upon the Augustan religious system in constructing
their own worlds.

I. MYTHS AND PLACE

Roman mythology, according to the traditional view, never existed:
only under the influence of Greece in the last centuries B.c. did the gods
acquire some kind of mythology.® A contrasting view holds that there
was indeed a Roman mythology, which was in strict harmony with the
mythology of the Vedic Indians, the Scandinavians or other Indo-
European peoples, but that it was mainly swamped by the influx of
Greek mythology in the middle Republic.? The outcome of both views
for the imperial period is the same: the current mythology was an alien
import without much significance for Roman religion, and thus works
on late republican or early imperial religion have little or nothing to say
about mythology.® The paradox is that the early books of Livy and
Dionysius of Halicarnassus are full of mythological stories about early
Rome, while Ovid’s Fasti consists entirely of descriptions of festivals
and their associated myths. These authors would have been perplexed to
be told that their accounts were trivial foreign imports.

The Roman mythology current in the early Empire was very different
from that of other peoples, including, surprisingly, the Greeks. The
myths did not form a cosmogony like that of Hesiod, and several major
deities, including Jupiter and Mars, do not take part in any divine
adventures. Indeed the Greek Dionysius of Halicarnassus commends
Romulus, whom he holds responsible for the establishment of Roman
religion, for following ‘the best customs in use among the Greeks’, while
rejecting traditional Greek myths which contained calumnies about the
gods.° There had long been a debate in Greece about the propriety of
certain myths, and Dionysius praises Romulus, and Roman religion of
his own day, in the light of that debate. In the eyes of an educated Greek,
Roman mythology was quite different from the traditional Greek stories

6 Wissowa 1912 (F 241) 9; Latte 1926 (F 169); H. J. Rose, Mnemosyne qth ser. 3 (1950) 281: ‘It is as
certain as any negative historical proposition can ever be that Rome had no myths, at least none of a
kind which could possibly associate themselves with cult.’ The traditional view also held that in the
earliest period there were only primitive powers, undifferentiated by personal attributes. This is a
separate issue, on which see North, CAH vir, ch. 12.

7 See briefly Dumézil 1970 (F 124) 47-59, and also Koch 1937 (F 162) (with review by R. Syme,
IRS 29 (1939) 108-10). Sabbatucci 1970-2 (F 210) discusses the general issue of the ‘loss’ of Roman
Peace 1973 (F 151) is the best introduction. See also Horsfall in Bremmer and Horsfall 1987 (F
105) ch. 1. 9 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 11.18-20.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

MYTHS AND PLACE 815

about their gods, contrary to the modern theories about the profound
hellenization of Roman religion in the middle and late Republic.

Roman myths were in essence myths of place. They recounted the
history of the area of Rome itself, a history that extended without
interruptions or Dark Ages to the Augustan age and of which there were
living tokens in the cults of Rome. Dionysius devotes the whole of his
first book to the earliest populations of the area, especially the Arcadians,
Greeks by origin, who were responsible for consecrating ‘many
precincts, altars and images of the gods and instituted purifications and
sacrifices according to the custom of their own country, which conti-
nued to be performed in the same manner down to my day’.!0 The most
striking of these was to Hercules, who passed through the area on one of
his labours and killed a local bandit, Cacus. Evander, king of the
Arcadians, wanted to offer divine honours to Hercules, knowing that he
was destined for immortality. Hercules himself performed the initial
rites and asked the Arcadians to perpetuate the honours by sacrificing at
the spot each year with Greek rites. The altar at which Hercules
sacrificed ‘is called by the Romans the Greatest Altar (Ara Maxima). It
stands near the place they call the Cattle Market (Forum Boarium) and is
held in great veneration by the inhabitants’."!

The ritual of this altar was the subject of learned debate. The Greek
nature of the sacrifices was satisfactorily explained by the story of
Evander and Hercules, but there was a further peculiarity: women were
barred from the altar. Various explanations were offered. A Roman
annalist of the second century B.c. seems to have explained the ban
through a story that the mother of Evander and her women were late for
sacrifice.12 Varro offered a different account: the priestess of the Bona
Dea (whose shrine lay near the Ara Maxima) refused to allow Hercules to
drink from the goddess’ spring, and in turn Hercules banned all women
from his altar.!3 The myth and ritual of the Ara Maxima were the subject
of lively interest on the part of antiquarians, historians and poets of the
late Republic and early Empire. Their accounts exemplify the focus of
Roman myths on a particular place, and the elaboration of that focus in
the Augustan age.'4

The majority of Roman myths refer to the founding and early years of

10 Dion. Hal. Ant. Roar. 1.33.3.

"ibid. 1.40. Cf. Wissowa 1912 (F 241) 273-5. Winter 1910 (F 239) and Bayet 1926 (F 88) 127-54
elucidate the different versions of the story; Coarelli 1988 (E 21) 61-77 notes the Greek design of the
altar. Virgil too incorporated this story into his ‘history’: Aen. vii1.267-79.

'2 Origo gentis Romanae 6.7, from Cassius Hemina; cf. Plut. Qucest. Rom. 60.

'3 Macrob. Sat. 1.12.28. Prop. tv. follows Varro’s account, not without a sense of humour.

'* This perspective persisted through the imperial period. An inscription of the early third
century, probably put up near the altar, commemorates the offering of the solemn sacrifice which
Hercules had established at the time of Evander: ILS 3402.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

816 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

Rome. So, for example, a myth related to the festival of the Parilia, the
founding of Rome and the creation of its sacred boundary. According to
Ovid, there was an ancient rural festival designed to purify the sheep and
cattle by calling on the goddess Pales, from whose name that of the
festival was derived.!5 Ovid goes on to describe the festival, in two parts.
First, the contemporary urban festival, in which he says he had often
taken part. ‘I personally have often brought in handfuls the ashes of the
calf and the beanstalks, pure means of expiation. I personally have leaped
over the flames ranged three in a row, and been sprinkled with water by
the moist laurel bough.” After this, Ovid moves on to the rural festival
of purification of sheep and cattle. ‘Shepherd, you purify your well-fed
sheep at fall of twilight, first sprinkle the ground with water and sweep it
with a broom’ and so on.!7 His account of the rural festival is much fuller
than of the urban one, but he makes clear that the two do differ (there is
no blood of a horse or ashes of a calf in the rural festival). In drawing this
distinction Ovid is (allegedly) following the evidence of his own eyes,
and also the work of Varro, who insisted on the distinction between the
public and private festivals, that is the urban and the rural.18

Ovid goes on to discuss the origins and hence significance of the
festival. The Parilia, like any Roman festival, permitted a multitude of
competing explanations.!9 Ovid was faced with no less than seven: (i) fire
is a natural purifier; (ii) fire and water were used together because
everything is composed out of opposing elements; (iii) fire and water
contain the source of life, as in the symbolism of exile and marriage; (iv)
the festival alludes to Phaethon and Deucalion’s flood, an explanation
Ovid doubts; (v) shepherds once accidentally ignited straw; (vi) Aeneas’
piety allowed him to pass through flames unscathed; (vii) when Rome
was founded, orders were given to transfer to new houses; the country
folk set fire to the old houses and leaped with their cattle through the
flames. Ovid favours the last interpretation, commenting that it happens
“even to the present day on the birthday of Rome’.

Ovid elucidates his favoured interpretation by recounting the story of
Romulus and the foundation of Rome, a story to which we shall return in,
the context of Augustus. Romulus chose the time of the celebration of
the Parilia to found the city of Rome. He marked out the lines of the wall
of the new city with a furrow, praying to Jupiter, Mars and Vesta;
Jupiter responded with a favourable augury. Romulus then instructed
one Celer to kill anyone who crossed the walls or the furrow, but Remus,
in ignorance of the ban, leaped across them and was struck down by

15 Ov. Fast. rv.820; Plut Rom. 12. Dion. Hal. Ast. Rom. 1.88.3 is uncertain whether it predated the
foundation of the city. For testimonia on the Parilia see [Ital xm 2.443-5.

16 Ov. Fast. rv.725—8. 7 Fast. 1v.735-6. 18 Varro, ap. schol. Pers. 1.72.
19 Cf. Beard 1987 (F 92).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

MYTHS AND PLACE 817

Celer. In this common version, the Parilia, the founding of Rome, the
creation of the pomerium and the killing of Remus all interconnect.”

In making his choice of interpretation Ovid was in good company.
Though modern scholars are generally happy to treat the Parilia as a
genuine, primitive agricultural ritual which survived into imperial
Rome,?! our only extant pre-Julian calendar marks against the entry
Parilia ‘Roma condita’, and the association of the Parilia with the
foundation of Rome only became more orthodox. When news of his
decisive victory at Munda in 45 B.c. arrived in Rome at the time of the
Parilia, the coincidence was exploited in favour of Caesar, the new
Romulus: games were added to the Parilia, at which people wore crowns
in Caesar’s honour.22 And the Romulan theme became dominant in a.D.
121 when Hadrian chose the date of the Parilia to found his new temple
of Venus and Roma: the festival continued to have lively celebrations,
but became known as the Romaea.#

The Parilia provide a perfect example of the way that competing
interpretations of Roman festivals changed. The Parilia could be seen in
all sorts of ways, as Ovid shows: in terms of natural science (fire as a
natural purifier); philosophy (fire and water as opposing elements);
Greek myths (Phaethon and Deucalion); accident (chance fire caused by
shepherds); Roman myth (Aeneas and Troy). But the interpretation
already offered by the pre-Julian calendar was the one Ovid favoured:
that the festival was connected with the founding of Rome. For Ovid the
ancient festival, at which Rome was founded, evokes the incorporation
of the primitive golden age into the structures of imperial Rome.

The privileging of one, historicizing interpretation of the Parilia,
which connects the festival and the site of Rome, is characteristic of the
late Republic and early Empire. One might compare the contemporary
accounts of Hercules and the Ara Maxima. Of course, since the early
second century B.c. there had been ‘histories’ of Rome, which focused on
the achievements of the Roman state, but, so far as we know, the
preoccupation of Livy with the p/ace of Rome is new, and Dionysius of
Halicarnassus was able to recount Roman ‘history’ in a connected
sequence from Hercules to Aeneas to Romulus to Camillus and so on to
the present. Roman myths pertain almost exclusively to the site of Rome;
the story of Romulus and Remus concerns the creation of the city and its
sacred boundary.

2% Fast. 1v.833—48. There was another version of the killing of Remus: Livy 1.7.2; Dion. Hal.
Ant.Rom. 1.87.2. Bremmer in Bremmer and Horsfall 1987 (F 105) ch. 3 discusses the myth of
Romulus and Remus.

41 Wissowa 1912 (F 241) 199-201; Scullard 1981 (F 223) 103-5. This view fails to exploit the
differences between the urban and rural festivals. Dumézil 1969 (F 123) 283-7 and 1970(F 124) 380-5
uses the festival to illuminate a cognate Indian deity.

2 Weinstock 1971 (F 235) 184-6. Prop. Iv.1.19-20 notes that the ritual had become more
elaborate. 3 Ath. vit.361ef; Beaujeu 1955 (F93) 128-33.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

818 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

1. The pomerium

The importance of Rome’s pomerium was manifold. At the mythical level,
the conflict between Romulus and Remus over the foundation of the city
was settled by the sight of six vultures by Remus on the Aventine and of
twelve by Romulus on the Palatine: the Aventine was not included
within the pomerium until the time of Claudius. And the killing of Remus
was justified by his violation of the boundary of the new city.24

In the imperial period the pomerium was clearly marked by massive
blocks of stone, 2 m tall and 1 m square.25 Placed wherever the line of the
pomerium changed direction, the precise distance in Roman feet between
each marker stone was indicated on the stone itself and all the stones
were numbered in sequence along the line of the pomerium. The markers
ensured that there was no uncertainty about the precise line of the
boundary, and no excuse for error. There had been various republican
alterations to Romulus’ pomerium but the extensions carried out by
Claudius and Vespasian were the only ones in the imperial period; they
took the area enclosed by the pomerium up from 325 ha to 665 and 745 ha
respectively. In addition, when a dyke was built to control the Tiber
floods, Hadrian ensured that new boundary stones were erected directly
above the old ones. The right to extend the pomerium was sufficiently
important to be specifically listed in the powers granted to Vespasian at
his succession.26 Such extensions were justified by a precise connexion
between the boundary of Rome and the boundary of the Roman empire.
The actual marker stones of Claudius and Vespasian include the formula:
‘having increased the boundaries of the Roman people, he increased and
defined the pomerium’, and this was the generally accepted reason for the
extension of the pomerium.2” The pomerium was thus intimately bound up
with the ultimate boundary of the Roman people.

The boundary was also reinforced at time of crisis. Following dire
portents, the ponftifices purified the walls with solemn lustrations, moving
round the circuit of the pomerium. For example, the appearance on the
Capitol in a.p. 43 of a horned owl, a bird considered to be particularly
inauspicious, led to the lustration of the city.28 The significance of such

2 The execution of those who damaged city walls was justified in Roman law by the story of
Remus: Dig. 1.8.11 (Pomponius). For sources on the pomerium see Lugli 1952 (E 82) 1 116-51 and for
Roman preoccupation with space see Rykwert 1976 (A 85), Meslin 1978 (F 188) ch. 2.

25 Labrousse 1937 (E 68); Boatwright 1987 (F 289) 64-71. According to Varro, there were
markers in the republican period, but they do not survive. The area enclosed by the pomerium was
almost exactly that covered by the early third century A.D. official map of Rome, though the
pomerium itself was not marked. 2% ILS 244.14-16, citing Claudius as precedent.

2 Tac. Ann. xit.24.2; Gell. NA xitt.14.3. The SHA claims that Augustus, Nero, Trajan and
Aurelian extended the pomerium, but see Syme 1978 (F 225).

2 Pliny, HN x.35. Cf. Tac. Asn. xiit.24, Hist. 1.87.1, tv.55, with Wissowa 1912 (F 241) 391. Such
lustrations may be the origin of the alleged festival of the Amburbium: Wissowa 1912 (F 241) 142
and n.12; Scullard 1981 (F 225) 82-3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

MYTHS AND PLACE 819

lustrations is vividly depicted in Lucan’s epic on the civil wars. He
describes at length a fictitious lustration of the city along the line of the
pomerium after Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon.29 Lucan’s retrojection
ofacontemporary practice is a perfect reflection of the preoccupations of
the imperial period. Rome could not allow another Remus to cross the
pomerium; at times of threat the boundary had to be purified and
strengthened.

As in the republican period, the pomerium continued to be a significant
dividing line, though some of the rules were redefined to accommodate
the emperor. These changes foreshadow the more extensive alterations
to be discussed in the next section. In one area, however, even emperors
were no exception. The ancient prohibition on burial within the
pomerium was reaffirmed by various emperors until the fourth century
A.D. and seems to have been generally observed. And emperors them-
selves, with the solitary exception of Trajan, to whom we shall return
(below, p. 820), were buried outside the pomerium. Indeed Claudius and
Vespasian deliberately refrained in their extensions of the pomerium from
including the area of the Campus Martius used for imperial cremations
and burial.

Civil authority in the Republic had been defined and limited by the
pomerium. The popular legislative assemblies could meet only within the
pomerium, the favourable signs from the gods (auspicia) which were
preconditions for the assemblies could be received by civil magistrates
only within the pomerium.® With the shift in functions from the popular
assemblies to the Senate and emperor, the significance of the assemblies
waned in the first century A.D. but augury (i.e. the interpretation of
auspicia from heaven) continued to be important: a list of auguries
between the years 1 and 17 A.D. happens to survive on stone, and augurs
were appointed until the end of the fourth century a.p. The augurs were
the priests responsible for the interpretation of auspicia and for maintain-
ing the pomerium itself.31 The powers of a tribune of the people were
likewise limited by the pomerium; when in 30 B.c. Octavian was given the
powers of a tribune to aid those who appealed to him, they were
restricted, in traditional manner, to the area within the pomerium and up
to one Roman mile outside. But subsequently, with the grant of the
tribunician power in 23 B.C. emperors ceased to be restricted by the
pomerium 32

Military authority, which was traditionally valid only outside the
pomerium, was partially redefined for the emperor. In the celebration of

79 Luc. 1.584—Goq. Prop. 1v.4.73 describes a threat to the boundary (by Tarpeia) at the Parilia, ‘the
day the city first got its walls’.

3 Magdelain 1968 (F 180) 57-67; Magdelain 1977 (F 181); Catalano 1978 (F 110) 422-5, 479-91.

31 CIL vi 36841 (auguries); Wissowa 1912 (F 241) 534 n.2 and Labrousse 1937 (E 68) 170 0.1

(pomerium). For an augur dealing with an Augustan comifia, see Torelli 1975 (B 291) 111-16, 131-2.
32 Dio 11.19.6. Cf. Suet. Tib. 11.3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

820 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

triumphs emperors continued to follow the ancient rules. When Vespa-
sian celebrated his victory over the Jews he spent the night before the
triumph outside the pomerium, so as to start the triumph by crossing it at
the Triumphal Gate.33 The anomalous burial of Trajan within the
pomerium is explained by the rules for a triumph. The ashes of Trajan,
who had died in the East after conquering Parthia, were brought into
Rome in triumphal procession and placed in the base of his column.
Justification was found in an allegedly traditional right of those who
held triumphs to be buried within the city.>4

The scope of the emperor’s imperium, which by now was broader than
merely military authority, was redefined. From 23 8.c. onwards, emper-
ors held imperium, both within and outside the pomerium.>> They thus had
command of troops in Rome, though the praetorian guard was actually
stationed just outside the pomerium. Some emperors even appeared in the
city in military dress* and in 2 B.c. Mars received for the first time a
temple within the pomerium (below, p. 833). With the combination of
civil and military power in the hands of the emperor, the pomerium ceased
to exclude the military sphere, but it continued to be of central
importance as the boundary of Rome. We turn now to other transforma-
tions of the traditional system as part of the establishment and definition
of autocratic rule.

II. THE RE-PLACING OF ROMAN RELIGION

The Augustan period is conventionally viewed as one of restoration or
renovation of traditional cults plus the addition of ruler cult. This
dichotomy of restoration and innovation is quite false. The ancestral
cults of Rome were not simply restored; they were restructured. Ruler
cult in Rome was nota simple innovation; many aspects of it were deeply
traditional. Thus the distinction between the two types of cults disap-
pears. There were major changes in Rome in the Augustan period, which
affected senatorial priesthoods and state temples; at the lower level, the
ward cults; and the Secular Games. At the centre was Augustus,
sometimes seen as the new Romulus, and round him the whole religion
system was restructured.

The concern for the proper performance of religious rites is illustrated
by a book entitled ‘Memorable Acts and Sayings’, which devoted the
first chapter to religion.” The work, dedicated to Tiberius, notes

33 Joseph. BJ vir.123. For the Younger Drusus see Tac. Aan. 111.11.1, 19.4; for Trajan see the
relief from Arch of Beneventum, Hassel 1966 (F 412) 19-20 and pls 15 and 17.

* Richard 1966 (F 204).

38 Dio Lrit.32.5. But note Tac. Ann. x11.41.1 on the young Nero.

36” Alf6ldi 1935 (D 2) 5-8, 47-9. 37 Val. Max. 1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

RE-PLACING 821

examples of ancestral maintenance of religion even in the face of severe
difficulties, of punishment meted out to those who ignored the claims of
religion, and of the correct response to cases of superstition. These
paradigmatic anecdotes neatly encapsulate the importance placed in the
imperial period on the maintenance and even reinforcement of Roman
religious practice.

An index of the energy put in the early Empire into the organization of
religion is the production of books on religious law. Traditionally,
sacred law had been the special preserve of the various priestly colleges,
but from the second century B.c. various priests published books on the
subject, and in the second half of the first century B.c. others also, both
juriconsults and antiquarians, wrote further works. Jurists continued to
write such works in the early Empire. Antistius Labeo wrote ‘On
Pontifical Law’ in at least fifteen books, Ateius Capito ‘On Pontifical
Law’ in at least six books, ‘On Law of Sacrifices’ and ‘On Augural Law’;
Veranius ‘On Auspices’ and ‘Pontifical Questions’.28 These treatises
codified the basic framework of sacred law and made subsequent work
unnecessary; after the early first century A.D. we hear of no further books
on the subject, despite the fact that some leading jurists were also
members of priestly colleges. The legal works of the Augustan and
Tiberian periods are a neglected aspect of the religious and intellectual
achievement of the age.

The need to pay particular attention to religion is stated by poets in the
early 20s B.c. Horace, in an Ode composed before 28 B.c. associates the
recent travails of Rome with religious neglect. This poem is sometimes
used as evidence for the decline of religion in the late Republic, but it of
course does not support that thesis.39 Horace is here reflecting and
creating an Augustan perspective on the previous period. Just as Livy,
writing on early Rome, explained her misfortunes at the hands of the
Gauls by religious neglect, so Horace is seeking to account in traditional
fashion for the turmoil and near disasters of the previous generation.”

The solution, in the eyes of both Horace and Virgil, lay in the hands of
one man.*! Octavian, or to use his official Roman name, Imperator
Caesar, held such a position of prominence that in 27 B.c. some proposed
that his name should be changed to Romulus, as the new founder of
Rome.“ But others thought that Romulus was too regal a name and one
that carried the taint of fratricide, and an alternative proposal won the

3 Schulz 1946 (F 690) 40-1, 80-1, 89~90, 138.

»* Hor. Carm. 111.6, with Jal 1962 (F 158). Temples had been neglected by the rich in favour of
their private luxury: Carm. 11.15.17-20; Sat. 11.2.103—4. Against the decline thesis see Beard, CAH
1x2, ch. 19.

® Compare Virg. G. 1.501-2. Horace parallels the fate of Troy with that of Rome: Cara. 111.3.

4) Virg. G. 1.498-so1. Hor. Carm. 1.2 with Bickerman 1961 (F 96) and Nisbet and Hubbard 1970
(B 133) ad loc. 4 Suet. Aug. 7.2 and Dio L111.16.7-8, with Scott 1925 (F 222).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

822 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

day. His official name henceforth was Imperator Caesar Augustus. Both
names indicated that the bearer was uniquely favoured by the gods for
the service of Rome. The story was told that when Octavian was
campaigning for his first consulship in 43 B.c. six vultures appeared, and
that when he was elected six more appeared; this auspicy indicated that
like Romulus he would (re)found the city of Rome.*3 This theme was
maintained in the choice of the name ‘Augustus’, a word which was used
of all places consecrated by augurs. The name carried evocations of the
founding of Rome, without using the name of an actual king of Rome,
and of the peculiar favour of the gods for its bearer.4

Augustus also awarded honours to the first founder of Rome. In 16
B.c. he rebuilt the temple to Quirinus, who had become identified in the
late Republic as the deified Romulus. A fragment of a later relief depicts
the pediment of the temple.*5 In the centre stand Victory and Mercury,
with Jupiter and Hercules on either side, and beside them Vesta, Mars
and Venus. This fine gathering of Augustan deities is impressive
enough, but the important point is that these gods are connected with
Romulus and Remus. They are at either end of the pediment sitting as
augurs, and in the top centre are the vultures seen at the founding of
Rome.

The depiction of both Romulus and Remus reflects an Augustan
emphasis on fraternal harmony. The myth of Romulus presented above
(pp. 816-17) simply gave one, Augustan, version of the myth, but there
were other, earlier versions of the story with very different emphases.
Horace, for example, condemned the renewed bloodshed in the civil
wars, in the late qos or early 30s B.c.: “A bitter fate pursues the Romans,
and the crime of a brother’s murder, ever since blameless Remus’ blood
was spilt upon the ground, to be a curse upon posterity’. By contrast
with this version, Ovid makes Romulus say to Remus: ‘There is no need
for strife. Great faith is put in birds; let us try the birds’, and, as we have
seen, he blames the death of Remus on his ignorance of Romulus’
prohibition and the action of Celer.* Romulus himself is guiltless, the
travails of Rome are ascribed to the sin of Laomedon, and Augustus can
thus be seen as the new founder of Rome.

Augustus subsequently undertook a major administrative reorganiza-

43 Obsequens, 69; Dio xLv1.46. 1-3 gives six plus twelve. Suet. Axg. 95 and App. BCiv. 111.94 give
twelve only and treat them as a different type of auspicy.

4 Suet. Aug. 7.2, drawing on the Augustan writer Verrius Flaccus, also used by Festus p. 2L; Ov.
Fast. 1.608-16. Cf. Gagé 1930 (F 141); Erkell 1952 (F 129) 9-39; Dumézil 1957 (F 122).

48 Hommel 1954 (F 425) 9-22; Koepel 1984 (F 164) 51-3. In the original temple the Senate had
erected in 45 B.c. a statue of Caesar: Cic. Aft. xtt.45.3, x111.28.3. On the Forum Augusti see below, p.
833.

“ Hor. Epod. vir; Ov. Fast. 1v.813-14. Cf. Wagenvoort 1956 (B 189); Koch 1954 (F 163); Grant
1973 (F 151) 101-47.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

RE-PLACING 823

tion of the city, which created local analogues to the reformed religious
system of the state. In the earlier system, ascribed to Servius Tullius,
there were four regions and shrines to the /ares at every crossroad, where
annual sacrifices were offered. In 7 B.c. Augustus divided Rome into
fourteen districts (regiones) and 265 wards (vici).47 The importance of the
wards lay primarily in the area of cults.‘ In the late Republic the colleges
responsible for the cults at crossroads in the city had been a political
danger and Caesar had attempted to suppress them, but, perhaps in 29
B.C. (among other occasions), Augustus had given theatrical perfor-
mances in every ward of the city to celebrate a quadruple triumph, and
the cults themselves seem to have continued in the early Augustan
period.*9

The Augustan reorganization transformed the cults of the wards:
from 7 B.c. onwards they were of the Lares Axugusti and the Genius
Axgusti. The traditional celebrations were also changed. To the old
festival of the /ares on 1 May was added a new celebration on 1 August,
when the magistrates took up office, presumably in honour of the Genius
Augusti.®© The lares were ancient, but obscure beings, seen by some
ancient writers as the deified spirits of the dead.*! If this interpretation
were dominant, the Lares Augusti would be the imperial ancestors, and
the Genius Augusti, the Spirit of Augustus himself. The ward cults now.
consisted of cults previously located within the house of Augustus.*2

The new cults involved building a shrine at the crossroads in each
ward. The one excavated example is a small monument, 2.80 m by
2.38 m, with a flight of five steps running up to the shrine, which
sheltered images of the Lares Augusti and the Genius Augusti as well as a
small altar.53 The reliefs on the various extant altars are of great interest.
The most elaborately carved altar shows, on the two smaller sides, a
sacrifice performed by the ward magistrates, and Victory with the shield
of Virtue awarded to Augustus; and on the other two larger sides,
Aeneas with the Laurentian sow and the apotheosis of Caesar. These
reliefs clearly relate to the iconography of official Augustan art, but their
style of carving and the wide range in the iconography of the altars is

47 Cf. above, ch. 15, pp. 794, 801-02.

% Wissowa 1912 (F 241) 167-73; Alfdldi 1973 (F 83) 18-36; Liebeschuetz 1979 (F 174) 69-71;
Kienast 1982 (c 136) 164-7.

4 Boyancé 1950 (F 102). Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1v.14.4; Degrassi 1965 (B 226) 269-71.

51 Festus, p. 108L; Am. Adv. Nat. 11.41 (= Varro fr. 209 Cardauns).

52 The only precedent for the Lares Axgusti is a solitary dedication from Gallia Cisalpina:
Degrassi, ILLRP 200 (59 B.c.), but the popular veneration of the Gracchi and Marius Gratidianus
seems to have taken place at the neighbourhood shrines. For the relation between these cults and
Augustus’ cult of Vesta see below, p. 826-7.

53 Nash 1968 (£87) 1 290-1. For full publication see Colini 1961-2 (F 334) and Tamassia 1961~2 (F
226); Dondin-Payre 1987 (F 350) gives further details. Cf. Holland 1937 (F 420).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

824 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

very important. Though Augustus handed the cults of the Lares Augusti
and of his Genius over to the wards, the actual arrangements and the
designs of the altars were the responsibility of the local officials.55

The Augustan reorganization of the ward cults placed the emperor
within the life of the city of Rome. The shrines continued to be repaired
(and used) through the third century and indeed still feature in the
fourth-century catalogues of Roman monuments.» The cults were not a
transient Augustan phenomenon. The running of the cults of a ward lay
in the hands of the four annual magistrates, who were mainly ex-slaves,
aided by four slave officials. They were responsible for the festivals,
including the local games (/adi compitalicit), and the names of the
magistrates were inscribed, just like the names of the consuls, on official
lists (beginning in 7 B.c.). The public functions and forms of the
magistracies gave a real status to the ex-slaves, who were debarred from
holding state or municipal office. The Augustan system was not simply a
sop for the senatorial class; it incorporated the emperor throughout the
city and down toa lowly level of society. The ward cults are symptomatic
of the changes in Roman religion under the Empire. Place continued to
be important; indeed the creation of the new wards marks an increased
emphasis on place. And within that framework the emperor was
inscribed.

1. Priesthoods

The imperial focus on Rome continued in the sphere of priesthoods.
Augustus, who held priesthoods only at Rome, gradually accumulated
membership of all the major priestly colleges, becoming pontifex in 48
B.C., augur in 41-40 B.C., X Vvir sacris faciundis in ¢. 37 8.c., and VIIvir
epulonum by 16 B.c. To mark the cumulation of offices a coin issued in 16
B.c. featured the symbols of each of the four priesthoods.5” In addition
Augustus was also a member of three of the lesser priesthoods: fraser
Arvalis, sodalis Titii and fetialis. To hold more than one major priesthood
was extremely unusual in the republican period. Caesar was both
pontifex and augur, but Augustus went beyond even Caesar’s precedent.
Cumulation was established as a peculiarly imperial privilege; only
emperors and their heirs held office in plurality.58 When Nero was

4 [Ital xin 2, p. 96; Ov. Fast. v.145—6.

58 Zanker 1969 (F 243); Panciera 1987 (E 92) 73-8. For example, one altar turned the victory with
the official shield of Virtue into a Victory with a purely military shield in front of a trophy.

56 Panciera 1970 (E 89) 138-51; 1980 (E 90); 1987 (E 92) 61-73. AE 1975, 14: an attempt to avoid
the duties of vici magister, which involved games with venatio.

57 Sutherland and Carson, RIC 1.69, nos 367-8. Cf. RIC 1.73, no. 410, 13 B.c. Gagé 1931 (F 142);
also Bayet 1955 (F 89). Gordon 1990 (F 148) stresses the emperor as the archetypal sacrificer.

58 Weinstock 1971 (F 235) 28-34; Lewis 1955 (F 173) 23, 94-101.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

RE-PLACING 825

adopted by Claudius, coins were issued with the same four symbols as
had appeared on Augustus’ coins and a legend indicating that Nero had
been co-opted as a supernumerary into the four priestly colleges by
decree of the Senate.5® The co-optation into four colleges simultaneously
was an innovation here, but it set a precedent for the later designation of
the emperor’s heir. The emperor and his heir embraced all religious
activity in Rome. As a result, Roman religion was tied to a particular
person as well as a particular place.

The first two of Augustus’ offices, augur and pontifex, are worth
consideration here: we shall return to the X Vviri sacris faciundis later. The
lituus, the symbol of the augurs, was regularly featured on the coinage of
Octavian in the 30s B.c. Octavian, like other republican leaders,
emphasized that his military authority was properly founded on
religious observance, but after Actium he stressed the peaceful over-
tones of the office of augur. In 29 B.c. Octavian took the augurium salutis,
at a time when no Roman forces were fighting; this was the ‘greatest
augury by which the safety of the Roman people is sought’, in the words
of an official record. Though the augurium salutis is treated as a tradition
revived by Augustus, the practice had been carried out only once before
(in 63 B.c.). The ‘tradition’ was, however, kept up subsequently.®! In the
early years of Augustus’ career the office of augur had considerable
importance, and later emperors continued to hold the office, but its
significance was subsequently overshadowed by another priesthood.

Augustus had been pontifex since 48 B.c., but in 44 B.c. Lepidus was
deviously appointed pontifex maximus in place of Caesar and held the
office until his death in 13 B.c. Augustus gave considerable emphasis to
the popularity of his election as pontifex maximus in 12 B.c. The date on
which the election occurred was celebrated by an annual festival; and
noted in Ovid’s Fasti.62 The event was indeed of central importance in
the restructuring of Roman religion.

The pontifex maximus was traditionally obliged to live in an official
house, which was in the Forum; even Caesar conformed. Augustus was
unwilling to give up his own house on the Palatine, but followed the rule
about the public house. Initially, he made a part of his own house public
property and subsequently (a.p. 3) after a fire destroyed the house he
rebuilt it and made it all public property.©3 Augustus also maintained, or
rather enhanced, the connexion between the pontifex maximus and the

59 RIC 1.125, nos. 76-7, 129, NO. 107, A.D. 50-4. For the history of this type see BMCR E 111.xl-
xliii. 6 Gage 1930 (F 141).

1 Revival: Suet. Aug. 31.4; Dio i1.20.4. Repeated: CIL vi 36841; Tac. Aan. x11.23.1. For the
semantic link with ‘Augustus’, see above, p. 822.

62 RG 10.2; Ital xu 2, p. 420; Ov. Fast. 111.415—-28.

63 Dio Liv.27.3; Lv.12.4-5. In 36 B.c. Octavian had been voted a house at public expense:
xLix.15.5. Cf. Weinstock 1971 (F 235) 276-81.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

826 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

cult of Vesta. The republican official house of the pontifex maximus was
adjacent to the precinct of the Vestal Virgins and among other
responsibilities he oversaw the cult of Vesta by the Vestals. Just under
two months after Augustus became pontifex maximus there was dedicated
‘an image and shrine of Vesta in the house of Imperator Caesar Augustus
pontifex maximus’ .©4 The old shrine which contained the sacred flame and
various secret objects remained on the Forum, but the creation of the
new shrine in Augustus’ house on the Palatine allowed a rearticulation of
the position of pontifex maximus.

The relationship of Augustus to Vesta was much closer. than that of
any republican pontifex maximus. It was expressed by contemporary
writers in two ways. First, by the stories of the origin of Vesta. Augustan
writers stated that Aeneas had brought the fire of Vesta with him from
Troy to Italy and that Romulus had transferred the cult, which his
mother had served, from Alba Longa to Rome.® Secondly, they assert
an actual kinship between Vesta and Augustus. In the words of Ovid,
‘Gods of ancient Troy, the worthiest prize to him who bore you, you
whose weight saved Aeneas from the foe, a priest of the line of Aeneas
handles your kindred divinities: Vesta, you must guard his kindred
head.’ Augustus was thus connected to Vesta both by blood and by the
deeds of his ancestors.

The creation of the shrine on the Palatine was an important stage in
the formation of a peculiarly imperial residence. What had been just one
of many residences of the republican nobility on the Palatine was
transformed into a palace. ‘Vesta has been received into the house of her
kinsman; so have the senators rightly decreed. Apollo has part of the
house; another part has been given up to Vesta; what remains is occupied
by Augustus himself ... A single house holds three eternal gods.’67
Rather than Augustus going to live in the public residence near the
shrine of Vesta he shared a house with her and Apollo (below, p. 832).
The pontifex maximus could now be called ‘priest of Vesta’8 and Vesta
had been replaced in a new imperial setting. The public hearth of the
state, with its associations of the success of the Roman empire, was now
confused with the private hearth of Augustus; in turn the private cult of

6 Hrtal x111.2, p. 452. The restoration of ‘shrine’ is controversial, but see Guarducci 1971 (F 153).
There was already a ramp linking the old temple of Vesta to the Palatine: Coarelli 1983-5 (E 19) 1237,
248, 10156.

65 Aeneas: Virg. Aen. 11.296, 567; Ov. Fast. 1. 527-8, 1.29, vt.227; Met. xv.730-1; Prop. 1v.4.69;
Dion. Hal. dat. Rom. 1.65.2. Romulus: Plut. Row. 22; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 11.64.5—69 argues at
tength for the (older?) alternative that Numa established the cult in Rome.

6 Fast. 111.423—6. Ovid does not spell out how they are related. For the various options see
Bomer 1987 (F 98). 8? Ov. Fast. tv.949-54- Cf. Wiseman 1987 (F 81).

88 Ov. Fast. 111.699, Vv. 573; Met. xv.778, retrospectively applied to Julius Caesar. In the third and
fourth centuries the pontifices were also known as pontifices Vestae. RE vit A.2, 1760.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

RE-PLACING 827

the imperial Lares and the Genius of Augustus was established in all the
wards of the city.

The new relationship with Vesta is one aspect of the transformation of
the office of pontifex maximus. Scholars sometimes say that in 12 B.c.
Augustus was appointed head of Roman religion, a pagan Archbishop of
Canterbury or Pope, and they are inclined to date his religious reforms to
the period after 12 B.c.© This attitude goes back to antiquity; Suetonius
(Aug. 31) groups a series of religious reforms under the heading of
Augustus as pontifex maximus, though some are demonstrably earlier.
This conception of the office was the one established by Augustus, not
the one current in the late Republic. The pontifices were, with the augurs,
the most prestigious priestly colleges of the Republic, but they had
distinct spheres of operation and the pontifices did not wield general
authority over the augurs or the other priestly colleges.”° Thus in the
Republic the pontifex maximus was merely head of one of the priestly
colleges. This changes with the emergence of dynasts in the late
Republic. Caesar became pontifex maximus in 63 B.c., and had begun to
convert the office into something new. Thus, in 44 B.c. it was decreed
that his son or adopted son should become pontifex maximus after him.7!
The intrigues which led to the election of Lepidus rather than Octavian
are hardly surprising. After the election of Augustus it was impossible
for anyone but the emperor living on the Palatine to be pontifex maximus
and all subsequent emperors took up the position soon after accession
(usually in March) and regularly featured it among their official titles.
Augustus had gradually accumulated membership of all four principal
priestly colleges and was not hindered at all by Lepidus, a political
nonentity. But once the office of pontifex maximus was in Augustus’
hands, it did become the keystone of the religious system. ‘From the fact
that they are enrolled in all the priesthoods and moreover can grant most
of the priesthoods to others, and that one of them, even if two or three
emperors are ruling jointly, is pontifex maximus, they control all sacred
and religious matters.’”2 From 12 B.c. onwards, for the first time, Roman
religion had a head.

Under the guidance of Augustus, who increased the privileges of
some priesthoods, the senatorial priesthoods remained extremely presti-
gious. Augustus noted that he had rewarded 170 of his senatorial
supporters in the civil war with priesthoods and Dio says that in 29 B.c.
Augustus was allowed to choose priests even beyond the regular
number.’3 But despite Augustus’ powers, the number of non-imperial

69 Wissowa 1912 (F 241) 74; Wilheim 1915 (F 238); Liebeschuetz 1979 (F 174) 70.

70 Beard and North 1990 (F 92a). 4 Dio xuiv.5.3. 7 Dio im.17.8.

73 RG 25; Dio t1.20.3. Scheid 1978 (F 62) against Schumacher 1978 (F 63) on numbers. Millar
1977 (A $9) 3579.15 on the first cumulation of major priesthoods.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

828 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

members of the main four priestly colleges remained stable. As these
priesthoods, unlike magistracies, were held for life, competition was
fierce. For the first two centuries of the Empire it was not possible for a
senator to be a member of more than one of the four main colleges.
Indeed only a quarter to a third of senators (and a half of all consuls)
could become priests. Some senators saw membership of one of the
priestly colleges as the pinnacle of their career, ranking higher than being
praetor or consul.

There were however problems with the appointment to two of the
priesthoods. The case of the flamen Dialis is a clear case study in the
flexibility of ‘tradition’. The office of famen Dialis had been vacant since
87 B.c., though the rites themselves had continued to be performed by
the pontifices until Augustus as pontifex maximus had the post filled in 11
B.C. The flamen Dialis remained subject to unique restrictions: for
example, ‘the feet of the couch on which he sleeps must be coated with a
thin layer of clay, and he must not sleep away from this bed for three
nights in succession, and no other person must sleep in that bed’. But
Augustus “altered certain relics of a primitive antiquity to the modern
spirit’.”4 The full details of the changes are lost to us, but the priest was
now allowed to spend more nights outside Rome and there seem to have
been changes in the status of his wife.’> The debates over the restrictions
continued. One flamen Dialis argued that he should be allowed to leave
Rome to govern a province; Tiberius as pontifex maximus ruled against
such a radical change. When this flamen died Tiberius argued that the
restriction of the office to those married in an archaic and now rare
manner should be lifted; this proved unnecessary as there was a suitable
candidate, but some legal restrictions imposed on his wife were
removed.’6 These changes in the rules governing the office of flamen
Dialis are among the best examples of the malleability of Roman
religious practice.

There had also been problems over the appointment of Vestal
Virgins, which Augustus attempted to solve. He increased the privileges
of the Vestals, including special seats in the theatre; later, distinguished
imperial women sat among the Vestals in the theatre.’? Many senators
were reluctant to put their daughters forward to be Vestal Virgins
(Vestals served for thirty years and subsequent marriage was unusual),
but Augustus swore that if any of his granddaughters had been of the
appropriate age, he would have proposed them. Such official encourage-

74 Gell. NA x1.15.14. Tac. Aan. 1v.16.3. Cf. Rohde 1936 (F 207) 136-7.

78 Tac. Ann. 1.71.3; Gai. Inst. 1.136, fragmentary. Cf. Gell. NA x.15.14 and 17 for other
changes.

7% Tac. Ann. 111.58—59.1, 71 (A.D. 22); IV.16 (A.D. 24). Cf. Domitian’s permission for a flamen Dialis

to divorce his wife: Plut. Quaest. Rom. 50 = Mor. 276.
7 Suet. Ang. 31.3, 44.3. Tac. Ann. tv.16.4; Dio L1x.3.4, Lx.22.2.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

RE-PLACING 829

ment proved to be successful. Under Tiberius two senators vied with
each other to have their daughters chosen as Vestal Virgins and the office
remained in high prestige through the third into the fourth century.”8

The Vestals in fact accumulated new, imperial functions in addition to
their traditional ones. In the Republic they had been present with the
other priests at the grand funeral of Sulla and it was voted that with the
Priests (pontifices) they should every five years offer up prayers for
Caesar’s safety.”? After Actium the Vestals headed the procession
greeting the returning Augustus; they were present at the dedication of
the Ara Pacis and with the magistrates and priests were responsible for
the annual sacrifices there. The Vestals were even put in charge of the
cult of the deified Livia.2° While Vesta gained a new shrine on the
Palatine, the Vestals gained a concern for the emperor and his family.
The emperor was thus further linked to the hearth of Rome and its
tokens of the farmer of the gods for Rome.

The Arval Brethren illustrate in more detail the extent and nature of
changes in priesthoods in the imperial period. They held a shadowy
position among the numerous priesthoods of the Republic, but their
sanctuary is attested archaeologically from the third century B.c.
Augustus became a member of the college and, perhaps in 29 B.c., placed
the body on a new footing.®! Our only republican literary source on the
Arvals explains that they perform rites to make the crops grow; their
name (fratres Arvales) comes either from sowing (ferendo) and fields
(arvis), or from the Greek fratria or brotherhood. By contrast, in the
imperial period the name was explained differently. The nurse of
Romulus had twelve sons, but one died and Romulus himself took his
place, calling himself and the others ‘Arval Brethren’.82 This myth
entirely suited a college which included Augustus, the new Romulus.

The revived college proudly inscribed a record of its ceremonies and
membership. The extensive fragments that survive run from 21 B.C. to
A.D. 304 and are the fullest extant record of any of the priesthoods of
Rome.83 The membership of the college was of some distinction from its
first Augustan appointments to the end of Nero’s reign. Thereafter the
members were generally drawn from the middle ranks of the Senate

7% Tac. Aan 11.86. Cf. 1v.16.4: a grant of 2 million sesterces to a new Vestal, presumably in
addition co the traditional salary. 7 App. BCiv. 1.106; 11.106.

® Ara Pacis: Ryberg 1955 (F 209) 41, 43, §1-2, 71-4; Dio L1.19.2; RG 11-12. Livia: Dio Lx.5.2.

81 Scheid 1975 (F 61) 3 35-66; 1987 (F 218) Cf. Saulnier 1980 (F 215) and Wiedemann 1986 (F 237)
for an Augustan reorganization of the fetiales.

® Varro, Ling. v. 85. Pliny, HN xvitt.6; Gell. NA v1.7.8, quoting Masurius Sabinus (forsit
Tiberius-Nero), who drew on earlier historians.

53 Texts mainly in Henzen 1874 (8 242) or ILS 229-30, 241, 5026-48. See in general Beard 1985 (F
91) with translation of selected documents.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

830 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

which could not expect consulships or major priesthoods.™ The records
of the Arvals’ ceremonies demonstrate clearly the extent to which the
ancient (or allegedly ancient) cults of Rome were re-structured round the
figure of the emperor.

The central, three-day festival of the Arval Brethren was in honour of
Dea Dia, an obscure deity known only from these inscriptions. The
festival was somewhat fluid, at least in the way it was recorded, but it
never included imperial sacrifices. The emperor and his family were the
focus of a range of quite separate sacrifices. There were annual vows and
special vows for the emperor’s safety, sacrifices to mark imperial
birthdays, accessions, deaths or deifications, sacrifices because of the
discovery of a conspiracy against the emperor or because he had returned
safely to Rome. There wasalso in the sanctuary of Dea Diaa shrine to the
emperors (a Caesareum) which contained imperial statues. But sacrifices
for the emperor were never in the sanctuary of Dea Dia and almost never
involved sacrifices to her. The vows were taken on the Capitol to the
Capitoline triad, Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, and the other sacrifices
were offered in various locations in Rome (mainly on the Capitol and at
the temple of Divus Augustus) to the Capitoline triad and other deities,
to the deified emperor and empress, to the Genius of the living emperor
and the Juno of the empress.

After A.D. 69, with the exception of one offering to the Genius of the
emperor and to the divi as part of a special ceremony of expiation in A.D.
224, there were no regular sacrifices to the divi nor sacrifices for imperial
birthdays.85 But sacrifices for special imperial events continued and vows
for the emperor’s safety were regular throughout the period. The
records of the Arval Brethren thus demonstrate the range of feligious
activity focused on the emperor that was performed alongside their
‘traditional’ cult. Talk of ‘restoration of ancient cults which had
gradually fallen into disuse’ should not blind us to the fact that
‘restoration’ entailed a radical shift in focus.

2. Temples

The building or rebuilding of temples is another aspect of the restructur-
ing of the religious system around the person of the emperor. Augustus
was proud of his speed in repairing eighty-two temples in 28 B.c. and of
building or repairing fourteen temples in Rome during his reign, but his
account of the temples is interspersed with references to his work on

% Scheid 1975 (F 61); Syme 1980 (D 70).

85 This change might be connected with a development in the function of the sodales Augustales
and other imperial priesthoods in Rome itself, who may have taken over sacrifices to the divi
previously carried out by the Arvals. 8 Suet. Aug. 31.4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

RE-PLACING 831

other, secular buildings, such as the Senate-house, theatres, the water
supply and a road.8” That is, Augustus presented his temple construction
within the tradition of building works carried out by victorious generals
and other senators. There was, however, a profound difference. While
senators continued to erect some secular buildings during the reign of
Augustus, after 33 B.c. only Augustus and members of his family built
temples in Rome. Senators, now excluded from their traditional oppor-
tunity for display in the capital, increased their munificence to their
native cities in Italy and elsewhere. This shouldering of responsibility for
temples in Rome increased the importance of the emperor.®8 Temple
building placed the emperor in a unique relationship with the gods.

Almost all the nine state temples built in Rome between the death of
Caesar and the accession of Vespasian refer directly or indirectly to the
emperor. Two were dedicated to the officially deified ruler (Divus Julius;
Divus Augustus). Three relate to official victories (Apollo; Neptune;
Mars Ultor). Two stress imperial virtues (Concordia; Iustitia). One
(Jupiter Tonans) was dedicated by Augustus in thanks for the fact that a
thunderbolt just missed him. Only one (to Egyptian Isis) has no overt
imperial associations, and may not be a real state temple. The reign of
Augustus is the crucial period for the establishment of this imperial focus
of temple building. Seven of the nine new temples date to his reign: in
addition, some of the old temples rebuilt by Augustus gained new
associations. Three temples built or rebuilt by Augustus may be taken as
exemplary of the new system: Cybele, Apollo and Mars Ultor.

The temple of Cybele on the Palatine was a familiar peculiarity in the
late Republic. The cult of the Mother of the Gods, introduced to Rome
from Phrygia in 205 B.c., was noted for its barbaric exoticism. Even in
Augustan Rome, at the festival of Cybele eunuchs preceded the goddess
through the streets banging drums and clashing cymbals. But the
goddess became in the Augustan period more Roman and more
imperial. Her Phrygian homeland was now associated with the Trojan
origins of Rome; according to Ovid, she almost followed Aeneas from
neighbouring Troy to Italy but awaited a later date. Already in the
Aeneid Cybele appears as a protectress of Aeneas on his journeys, and
implicit association with Augustus was strengthened when he rebuilt the
temple.®9

& RG 19-21. Cf. Eck 1984 (D 39) 136-42. Wissowa 1912 (F 241) 596-7 lists the new temples,
though that to Neptune was probably a restoration; see generally Gros 1976 (F 397).

88 All temples ‘would have fallen into complete ruins, without the far-seeing care of our sacred
leader, under whom shrines feel nor the touch of age; and not content with doing favours to
humankind he does them to the gods. O holy one, who builds and rebuilds the temples, I pray the
powers above may take such care of you as you of them’: Ov. Fast. u1.59-64. Cf. 1.13-14, Livy,
Iv.20-7. Suet. Ang. 29-30.

89 Fast. tv.25 1-4, 272. Virg. Aen. 11.693—7, tX.7—9, X.252-5. The rebuilding may pre-date 2 B.c.,
with subsequent restoration after a fire in A.D. 3: Syme 1978 (B 179) 30.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

832 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

The goddess herself gained prominence as the annual washing of the
image took place from the early Empire onwards not in the temple, but
after a grand procession down the river Almo, where the goddess had
first arrived in Rome. In the Republic, though the praetors had overall
responsibility for the sacrifices and games, no Roman citizen could take
part in the festival and the priests and priestesses were Phrygians, but in
the imperial period the rule changed and Roman citizens could become
priests and priestesses. It was even possible to honour Drusilla posthu-
mously with a festival modelled on the festival of Cybele.% The cult
retained ‘Phrygian’ peculiarities — Cybele held precedence over the other
gods, her children, and the offering to her of herbs, which the earth once
grew without human labour, sacralizes the most primitive stage of
human existence before the Greek Ceres introduced cereals”! — but they
obliquely emphasized the antiquity and pre-eminence of Rome.”

Adjacent to the temple of Cybele on the Palatine, Augustus also
constructed a temple of Apollo, which with the temple of Vesta framed
his own house. On the advice of baruspices he made public the part of his
property which had been struck by lightning in 36 8.c., dedicating the
temple itself in 28 B.c. The temple was of considerable grandeur,
featuring statues of the Danaids in the surrounding colonnade, ivory
carvings of Niobe and the Gauls on the door and statues of Apollo, his
mother and sister inside the temple. These three cult images were indeed
the works of three of the finest Greek sculptors of the Classical period.

The location of the temple is very striking. As Apollo was a Greek
god, his earlier temple was outside the pomerium, in the Circus Maximus.
Augustus moved his cult in, and made Apollo, who had previously been
a healing god of marginal importance, central to his new Rome. The
complex of Augustus’ house and the two temples, to Vesta and Apollo,
which was without precedent in Rome, subtly evoked the divine
associations of Augustus. The iconography of the temple of Apollo,
which highlighted the punishments meted out by Apollo to those who
disobeyed him, reflects Augustan preoccupations. Apollo had helped
Augustus to defeat Antony and Cleopatra at Actium in 31 B.c., and
Augustus rebuilt the sanctuary of Apollo at Actium, founding presti-
gious games (and Nicopolis) there.%° The new temple at Rome also
received (probably in 23~19 B.c.) the ancient Sibylline Books from the
temple of Jupiter which recorded the utterances of the prophetess under

9 Dio LIx.11.3. % Ov. Fast. 1v.367-72 with Brelich 1965 (F 104).

9 Lambrechts 1951 (F 167); Boyancé 1954 (F 103); Bomer 1964 (F 97); Wiseman 1984 (F 240). For
later developments in the cult at Rome, see Wissowa 1912 (F 241) 319-27; Lambrechts 1952 (F 168);
Van Doren 1953 (FP 230).

% Lightning: Suet. Axg. 29.3; Dio x1x.15.5. Grandeur: Prop. 11.31; Pliny, HN xxxvl. 24, 25, 32-

* Liebeschuetz 1979 (F 174) 82-5; Zanker 1983 (F 630). Gros 1976 (F 397) 211-29 disposes of the
alleged restoration of the earlier temple by Sosius in 34-32 B.C. % Gagé 1936 (F 144).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

RE-PLACING 833

the inspiration of Apollo.% And the focus of the Secular Games on
Apollo and Diana (below, pp. 835-6) shows how Apollo had become a
symbol of the new age.

The third major Augustan temple, which was later described as the
most beautiful building in the world, is the summation of Augustan
religious restructuring. The temple of Mars the Avenger formed the
centrepiece of Augustus’ new Forum, built next to the Forum of Caesar
and dedicated in 2 B.c.%” This was the first temple to the god of war
within the pomerium and its location in the centre of Rome reflects the
profound changes of the Augustan period in the rules governing the
emperor’s imperium.°®> Though the notion of the temple went back to a
vow Augustus took in 42 B.c., when he defeated the murderers of his
father, the emphasis on Mars as the Avenger also evoked Augustus’
vengeance on the Parthians in 20 B.c.; the standards lost by Crassus were
recovered and placed in the innermost shrine of the temple. This allusion
to contemporary achievements against foreign foes was reinforced by
the military functions prescribed for the temple. Military commanders
were to set off from the temple, the Senate was to meet in it to vote
triumphs, and victorious generals after the triumphs were to dedicate to
Mars the symbols of their triumphs.9 Thus military glory could be
displayed only in a setting which explicitly evoked the emperor’s
authority.

The design of the Forum and temple articulates the relationship
between Augustus, the gods and Rome, without directly glorifying
Augustus.!00 Augustus was referred to overtly only by the dedicatory
inscription on the architrave, and in the chariot which probably stood in
the centre of the Forum, but the whole complex evoked him. The cult
statues in the temple were of Mars, Venus and Caesar, referring both to
Caesar’s (and Augustus’) descent from Venus, and to Augustus’ piety in
avenging Caesar. On the pediment were Mars, Venus and Fortune;
Romulus as augur and victorious Roma flanked them, and on either side
were representations of the Palatine, the setting of Romulus’ augury, and
the river Tiber. Augustus’ own victories and restorations of Rome had
here their mythical analogues. In the porticoes on either side of the
temple stood balancing series of statues depicting Augustus’ dual
ancestry. On one side was Aeneas, the descendant of Venus, dutifully
carrying his father from the flames of Troy (echoing Augustus’ own filial

% Gagé 1931 (F 142) 99-101; 1955 (F 146), $4255.

7 Described in Ov. Fast. v. 545-98; Pliny, HN xxxvi.toz.

% There was already within the pomerium a temple to Quirinus, who was associated with Mars,
and Varro ‘recorded’ a primitive cult of Mars on the Capitol. Cf. Scholz 1970 (F 221) 18-33.

® Suet. Aug. 29; Dio tv.10.2-3. Cf. Bonnefond 1987 (F 293).

100 Zanker n.d. [¢. 1968] (F 625); Koeppel 1983 (F 4544) 98-101; Anderson 1984 (E 2) 65—100. For
Romulus see Degrassi 1939 (B 223).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

834 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

piety), and flanked by his descendants, the kings of Alba Longa and the
Julii. Facing this series was a statue of Romulus, the son of Mars,
victoriously bearing the armour of an enemy king whom he had slain in
battle and round him other figures of Roman history, celebrated mainly
for their military prowess. In all there were about 108 statues, each with a
brief inscription itemizing their distinctions. To these famous pre-
decessors and ancestors, stretching back to Aeneas, Romulus and
through them to Venus and Mars, Augustus was the heir. The place of
Rome, evoked by their achievements and by the representations of
Palatine, Tiber and Roma herself, was now restructured around the
figure of the emperor.

The restructuring connected with the temples of Apollo and Mars
Ultor was not however because of animosity towards the existing cults.
Both new temples did received functions previously part of the cult of
Jupiter Optimus Maximus: the Sibylline Books were moved to the
Palatine, and some military functions to the Forum Augustum. But
Augustus himself rebuilt the Capitol and made lavish offerings to
Jupiter. And the annual offering of vows on behalf of the emperor was
always performed in the Capitol. The old system had now increased in
complexity with the integration of the new temples into the life of Rome.

3. Secular Games

The celebration of the Secular Games in 17 B.c. neatly sums up the
workings of religion under Augustus and the subsequent persistence
and transformations of the Augustan system.1°! These games are
uniquely well documented in a variety of sources: the Sibylline oracle
ordaining the procedures, the inscribed record of the games, the hymn of
Horace sung at the festival, and other scattered sources. The main
location for the games was in the north-west Campus Martius beside the
Tiber at an altar known as the Tarentum (or Terentum), where the
records of the games were later set up. A story circulated from at least the
first century B.c. onwards that in archaic times one Valesius, hoping to
save his children from plague, was told by the gods to sail down the
Tiber to Tarentum, a Greek colony in the ‘instep’ of Italy, and give his
children water from the altar of Dis Pater and Persephone. Putting in at
night at the Campus Martius, he gave water to his thirsty children, who
were miraculously cured. He had unwittingly drawn water at a place
called Tarentum from the altar of Dis Pater and Persephone, and in

101 Nilsson 1920 (F 191); Pighi 1965 (B 263), who reprints the sources. There are two new

fragments of the inscription in Moretti 1982-4 (B 256). La Rocca 1984 (F 165) 3-55 discusses the
Tarentum.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

RE-PLACING 835

thanks for the cure Valesius established three nights of sacrifices and
games.'02 The Secular Games of Augustus were thus tied to this
mysterious place.

The Augustan celebrations, however, differed substantially from any
republican predecessors. Augustus and his heir Agrippa played leading
roles, though not without traditional justification. Augustus, long a
member of the XVviri, the board responsible for holding the games,
initiated the celebrations by writing to the board as one of its four
presidents. But in the festival the other three presidents stood aside in
favour of Agrippa, an ordinary member of the board. Augustus himself
offered the nocturnal prayers, and, with Agrippa, the diurnal ones. He
also ended each prayer with a petition ‘for me, my house and my family’.
This was a traditional prayer formula,'™ but in Augustus’ mouth the old
words acquired a new resonance: it was in the same year that he adopted
the sons of Agrippa as his ultimate heirs. The hymn sung on the third day
alluded to the central importance of Augustus: ‘May the illustrious
descendant of Anchises and Venus obtain the help of you gods whom he
worships with white oxen, superior to the enemy, merciful to the
prostrate foe.’ The old religion of place had acquired a new focus.

The celebrations themselves were also transformed. The preliminary
distribution of torches, sulphur and asphalt to the entire free population
of Rome (line 65; cf. line 8) had not been part of earlier Secular Games,
but as with the cult of the Lares Axgusti, there was an attempt to create
widespread participation. The model for this general purification of the
people of Rome was the Parilia; we recall Ovid’s description of the
purification by fire (above, pp. 816-17). As the Parilia was connected
with the original founding of Rome, so the Secular Games marked the
regular regeneration of Rome.

At the second stage of celebrations there were major changes to the
old practices. The nocturnal rites remained, but Dis Pater and Perse-
phone were replaced by the Fates, the Goddesses of Childbirth and
Mother Earth, and three day-time celebrations were added, to Jupiter,
Juno, and Apollo and Diana. Instead of a focus on the gloomy gods of
the Underworld, marking the passing of an era, the Augustan games
marked the birth of a new age. The fertility of Mother Earth, one of the
themes on the Ara Pacis, was guarded by the Fates and the Goddesses of
Childbirth. A prominent role was also played by 110 mothers, one for
each year of the saecu/um, and a chorus of boys and girls. The new temple
of Apollo on the Palatine (above, pp. 832-3) was also incorporated: it

102 Zosimus, 11.1—3 (and Val. Max. 11.4.5). Versnel 1982 (F 232) 217-28 discusses the relation of
the story to the Valerii.

103 The formula appears in Cato, Agr. 134, 139, 141. It is used by the matrons: Augustan asta line
130 (restored); Severan asta Iv.12.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

836 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

was one of the locations where the X Vviri took in offerings of crops and
gave out the material for purification, and where on the third day
sacrifice and prayer were offered to Apollo and Diana and the saecular
hymn was first sung.

The games are also worthy of comment.!™ They too reveal different
layers. During the three days of the festival proper there were two quite
different sorts of games: ‘at night games were held after the sacrifices on a
stage without a theatre and without seats’. This continued into the
following day, but there were in addition ‘games in a wooden theatre
which had been built in the Campus Martius by the Tiber’. The second
type of games formed the seven days of games that closed the festival;
these were held in three locations, the theatre in the Campus Martius; the
Greek musical games in the Theatre of Pompey and Greek theatrical
games in the theatre in the Campus Martius. The first type of games,
without theatre and without seats, was avowedly primitive (and un-
popular — it was not repeated in the seven days at the end of the festival).
Varro, writing on the origin of theatrical performances in Rome,
associated them with the introduction of the /adi Tarentini.!65 Those who
had read their Varro knew that quaint games of this type had to be
incorporated into the new structure.

The rituals and their organization were based on traditional sources.
The ‘ancient books’, perhaps the records of the XV viri, were searched
for details (none was forthcoming on how to finance the Secular Games)
and the organization of the rituals was in the hands of the eminent jurist
Ateius Capito (above, p. 821), but the main shape of the rituals was pro-
vided by a Sibylline oracle. Shortly before the Augustan celebration the
Sibylline oracles were purged of spurious items and deposited beneath
the statue of Apollo in the new temple on the Palatine (above, pp. 83 2—
3), and perhaps in the process the oracle enjoining quite new rituals was
discovered. In fact the oracle was probably an antiquarian product of the
Augustan age, incorporating earlier material. Both the oracle and the
prayers hope for the future obedience of the Latins to Rome, a notion
that made little sense under the empire, and which must have evoked the
troubles of the second century B.c.!% The ‘ancient books’, legaé expertise
and the Sibylline oracle combined to create and sanction the new rites.

The timing of the celebrations also received due authority. The only
well-attested republican celebrations were in 249 and 146 B.c., with a
cycle of 100 years.'07 But, following the Sibylline oracle (and Varro), a
cycle of 110 years was accepted as authentic and a sequence of earlier

104 Erkell 1969 (F 130). 105 Ap. Censorinus, D.N. 17.8 = Pighi 1965 (B 263) 37-8.
105 Diels 1890 (F 120) 13-15; Gagé 1933 (F 143) 177-83; Momigliano 1941 (F 189) 165 and
Momigliano 1966 (a 64) 625.

107 Censorinus, D.N. citing Varro and Livy. Censorinus gives 146 B.c.; Livy, Epit. 49 gives 149
B.C.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

IMPERIAL RITUALS 837

republican games was established, beginning in 456 B.c. These were
added after 17 B.c. to the official Calendar. This new history of the
games, which ignored the two earlier authentic celebrations, authorized
games in 16 B.c.; the puzzling choice of 17 B.C. is perhaps because of
disagreement over the precise year of the foundation of Rome.1%

The Augustan games formed the model for all subsequent celeb-
rations. Claudius celebrated games in A.D. 47, receiving censure from
modern scholars for his self-interested choice of date, but we tend to
forget that A.D. 47 was 800 years from the foundation of Rome and a
cycle of 100 years was perfectly reasonable (indeed the Greek translation
of Augustus’ Res Gestae (wrongly) translates saecularis as ‘every hundred
years’). Thereafter Domitian celebrated the games in a.p. 88 (six years
ahead of the Augustan cycle) and Septimus Severus in a.p. 204 (exactly
on the Augustan calculations). Both Domitian’s and Severus’ games
followed the Augustan procedure extremely closely. There were of
course some changes (a new hymn was written for 204, when the
emperor and his family were also somewhat more prominent), but the
basic structure of events was unaltered.

A second cycle of games was also celebrated under the Empire.!
Taking its lead from Claudius’ holding of Secular Games 800 years after
the foundation of Rome, games were also held the following two
centuries (A.D. 148 and 248). These were not counted in the official
numbered sequence of Secular Games and, in the latter two cases, the
ritual was quite different. The Tarentum seems to have been displaced in
favour of rites in front of the temple of Venus and Rome, known as the
Temple of the City, and the date was probably changed to 21 April, the
birthday of Rome (above, p. 817). These anniversary celebrations, which
developed from the Augustan framework, mark the emergence of anew
consciousness of the importance of the city of Rome. While under the
Republic such anniversaries of the foundation of Rome are unheard of,
in the imperial period, the Secular Games, within which the emperor was
inscribed, achieved a new importance.

Ill. IMPERIAL RITUALS

The religious position of the emperor was thus central and pervasive but
also diffuse. There was no one major ceremony such as a coronation or
new year’s festival at which the emperor was the leading actor, nor did
any one religious ritual sum up the religious position of the emperor.!#0
Rather, a range of rituals incorporated the living emperor. From 30 B.c.

108 For earlier plans to celebrate games in 23 3.c. see Virg. Aen. vi.65—70, 791-4, with

Merkelbach 1961 (PF 187) 91-9. 109 Gagé 1933 (P 143A), 1936 (F 145).
110 For such ceremonies elsewhere see Cannadine and Price 1987 (F 109).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

838 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

games were celebrated every five years by one of the colleges of priests or
the consuls in fulfilment of vows for Augustus’ health; and in 28 B.c.
Augustus’ name was inscribed in the hymn of the Salii by a decree of the
Senate.1!1 His birthday was celebrated publicly, as we have seen in the
case of the Arval Brethren (above, p. 830), and at banquets public and
private libations were made to Augustus.!!? Images of Augustus and
members of his family stood in household shrines, sometimes tended by
‘worshippers of Augustus’ organized on the model of private
associations. !13

Though there was no straightforward cult of the living Augustus in
Rome, his numen, or divine power, did receive public honours there. In
A.D. 6 (probably) Tiberius dedicated an altar at which the four main
priestly colleges sacrificed to the numen of Augustus.'14 Namen was not
shared by ordinary people, and had no resonances in family cult, which
makes the establishment of an official cult in Rome the more striking.

Ovid’s Fasti neatly encapsulates the invisible presence of Augustus.
Interspersed with accounts of traditional festivals (such as the Parilia),
Ovid mentioned every official festival of Augustan significance, such as
the founding of the Ara Pacis (1.709—22) or the establishment of the cult
of the Lares Augusti (v.129-46). Ovid has often been accused of poetical
flattery, but in fact he merely reflects the emphases of the official state
calendar. In addition, Augustus recurs in other contexts: the mother of
Evander prophesies the rule of Augustus and his family (1.5 29-36);
battles of Caesar and Augustus are recorded on otherwise blank dates
(1v.377-84, 627~8); and the closing of the temple of Janus because of the
Augustan peace (1.281-8); the disappearance of one temple leads to
mention of Augustus’ restoration of temples (11.55—66). In addition
various interpretations reflect Augustan interests: Ovid’s account of the
establishment of the cult of Venus in Rome, in conflating two temples,
ascribes the cult to Claudius Marcellus in 212 B.c. (Iv.863—76). In earlier
sources the first cult of Venus was established in Rome in 215 B.c. and
not under the instigation of Marcellus, but Marcellus was the illustrious
ancestor of Augustus’ nephew and intended heir, who received high
praise in Virgil (den. v1.855—6). Ovid also worked by suppression of
awkward information. He offers three explanations of the etymology of
‘June’ and pleads his inability to decide among them (v1.1—100), but he
makes no mention of the ‘obvious’ etymology, from Junius Brutus, the

1 Dio 11.19.7 with Weinstock 1971 (F 235) 217-19; RG 9.1; Saliiz: RG 10.1; Dio 1.20.1. The
same honour posthumously for members of the imperial family: EJ? 94a.4—5 and AE 1984, 508 Ilc;
Tac. Aan. 11.83, IV.9.

"2 Dio 11.19.7; Petron. Sat. 60; Ov. Fast. 11.637-8; ef. Hor. Carm. 1v.5.31-2.

"3° Ov. Pont. 1v.9.105—10; Tac. Ann. 1.73.2. Cf. Santero 1983 (F 214).

"4 TItalxttt.2, p. 401, restored with dating of Alf6ldi 1973 (F 83) 42—4. For examples from outside
Rome see below, p. 845. See Fishwick 1969 (F 135) for the distinction between Genius and aumen.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

IMPERIAL RITUALS 839

liberator of Rome from the kings (Macrob. Saf.1.12.3 1); after all, another
Brutus had killed Iulius Caesar. The emperor and his achievements were
formally celebrated throughout the year and his presence recurs
throughout Ovid’s Fasti, but there was no single, central religious
institution devoted to the living emperor.

Emperors after death were seen in sharper focus.!!5 The official cult
of Caesar offered the obvious model for Augustus and subsequent
emperors. Though some honours were probably voted for Caesar in his
lifetime their posthumous consolidation was decisive for subsequent
practice. In 42 B.c. the Senate passed the official consecration of Caesar,
including the building of a temple; in 40 B.c. Antony was inaugurated as
the first famen divi Iulii (an office to which he had been appointed in 44
B.c.), and Augustus began to call himself divi filins. Finally, in 29 B.c.
Augustus appointed a new flamen in place of Antony and dedicated the
temple to Caesar, an event celebrated by lavish contests. The temple
dominated the south side of the Forum Romanum and formed the
backdrop for public speakers using the new tribunal in front of it. The
posthumous status of Caesar was thus assured. Valerius Maximus,
writing under Tiberius, related that Divus Iulius appeared to Cassius at
Philippi, telling him that he did not actually kill Caesar as his divinitas
could not be extinguished; and elsewhere Valerius prayed by Caesar’s
altars and temples that his divinity would favour and protect the human
race (1.8.8; 6.13).

The transition of Augustus to the status long held by Caesar was
smoothly managed. The expectation was expressed in his lifetime that he
would ascend to his rightful place in heaven, and immediately after his
death Augustus was made a divus. The funeral, cremation and burial in
the Mausoleum were merely grand versions of the traditional funeral
of the Roman nobility, but afterwards a senior senator declared on
oath to the Senate that he had seen Augustus ascending to heaven. Asa
result, in the words of the official state calendar, ‘on that day heavenly
honours were decreed by the Senate to the divine Augustus’.!!6 The
main ‘heavenly honours’ were a temple, a fiamen, who was to be a
member of Augustus’ own family, and a priestly college of sodales
Augustales, leading members of the senatorial order. Augustus, like his
ancestor Romulus, went to join the gods.

The practices of the Augustan age established the basic framework
which prevailed for the rest of the imperial period. Emperors and
members of their families were given divine honours only after their
death and then only in recognition of the fact that they had, by their
merits, actually become gods. This Augustan system marks a change
from the tone of the triumviral period when Octavian was commonly

MS Price 1987 (F 200). "6 [Ital x111.2, p. 510.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

840 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

thought to have held a dinner party of the Twelve Gods, himself
appearing as Apollo, and when he erected a statue of himself on the
Palatine in the guise of Apollo. In addition, official coins from the mint
of Rome of the early 20s B.c. showed Octavian as Apollo, Jupiter and
Neptune, and the original plan for the Pantheon was that it should be
named after Augustus and have his statue inside it.1!7

After 27 B.c., Augustus no longer employed such imagery and his
successors generally upheld his norms. There were, of course, some
changes within the system. The Genius, or guardian spirit of Augustus
had not entered the state calendar in his lifetime, though it had been
honoured, mainly by freedmen, at the crossroads shrines in Rome
(above, p. 823). Tiberius resisted oaths by his Genius, but Gaius
despotically enforced them and they became standard from the reign of
Nero or at least Vespasian.!18 For example, the official regulations for
two towns in Spain enjoined an oath by Jupiter, various deified
emperors and the Genius of the reigning emperor (Domitian).!19 Official
sacrifices by the Arval Brethren to the Genius of the reigning emperor (or
the Juno of the empress) are also to be found from Nero onwards. Such
honours to the Genias were not an imperial peculiarity. Every man had
his own Genius, and every woman her Juno, who received offerings at
birthdays and also featured in oaths. But this was essentially a family
matter and, despite the existence of a cult of the ‘Genius of the Roman
People’ by the first century B.c., official cult of the Genius of the emperor
was slow to develop. The subordination of state to emperor implied in
the public celebration of a family cult was only gradually acceptable.

The one major rejection of the Augustan norms in this period was by
Gaius who, after a popular start to his reign, began to make claims to
personal divinity. He is said to have sat between the statues of Castor and
Pollux in their temple in the Forum, showing himself to be worshipped
by those who entered; he wore the clothing or attributes of a wide range
of deities, and established a temple to his own divinity.!20 Such
behaviour was completely unacceptable in Rome. For his biographer it
demonstrated that Gaius was no longer emperor or even king, but
monster, and memory of Gaius’ reign (however exaggerated) survived
as a warning to subsequent emperors not to destroy the Augustan
norms. Thus Claudius, by temperament a conservative with antiquarian
interests, reverted to the maintenance of ancestral Roman customs.
According to his biographer, ‘he corrected various abuses, revived some

"17 Suet. Aug. 70. Coins: Burnett 1983 (F 108), discussing Sutherland and Carson, RIC 1 nos.
270-2. Pantheon: Coarelli 1983 (F 116) on Dio L111.27.3.

"8 Tiberius: Dio Lv11.8.3; Lvit.2.8. Gaius: Suet. Calig. 27.3; cf. ILS 192, Dio L1x.14.7.

119 ILS 6088.i.30, 6089.iii.15. Cf. Weinstock 1971 (F 235) 205—6, 212-17.

120 Suet. Calig. 22, 52. Cf. Philo, Leg. 78-113, Dio 1ix.26—8.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND HER EMPIRE 841

old customs or even established some new ones’. For example, he always
offered a supplication when a bird of ill omen was seen on the Capitol,
and in making treaties he recited the ancient formula of the fetial
priests.!2! Concern for the maintenance of the Augustan system recurs
throughout the imperial period.

Iv. ROME AND HER EMPIRE

The relations between Rome and her empire, to which we now turn
briefly, reinforced the transformations visible in the religious system of
Rome itself. These relations are normally analysed specifically as the
spread of the imperial cult throughout the empire. That is, the worship
of the Roman emperor is seen as the cement of empire. In fact, there was
no such thing as ‘the imperial cult’, and in some important contexts
imitation of the transformed system of Augustan Rome was of far
greater significance than direct worship of the emperor.

Italy formed the core of the empire. All the freeborn population of the
peninsula up to the Alps had been Roman citizens since the time of
Caesar. Italy was not a province; it was not subject to Roman taxation,
but remained in principle a collection of self-governing communities.
But the authority of the religious institutions of Rome extended to Italy.
The scope is neatly illustrated by an incident under Tiberius, when the
equestrian order in Rome vowed a gift to the temple of Equestrian
Fortune for the health of Livia, only to realize that there was no such
shrine in Rome itself. But a temple was discovered at Antium, where the
Senate decided that the gift could be placed, ‘since all rituals, temples and
images of the gods in Italian towns fall under Roman law and jurisdic-
tion’. The case suits the tone of the imperial period. Expulsions of
undesirables were normally from both Rome and Italy, and the Roman
college of pontifices gave permissions to Italians on the repair of tombs or
the moving of corpses.!22

The unique position of Italy is visible most clearly in the calendar.
There survive, often in small fragments, forty-four calendars dating to
the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius (and one from the early first century
B.c.)'3 Of thirty-eight calendars whose original location is known,
twenty-five come from Rome itself, the others from towns in Italy, and
only one from elsewhere, a colony in Sicily. The level of detail given in
these calendars varies greatly, but all differ from earlier, Italian calendars
and all are mutually compatible. They give no festivals peculiar to their

421 Suet. Clend. 22, 25.5. Cf. Tac. Ann. x1.15 on baruspices.

12 Tac. Ann. 1.71.1. Pontifices. Millar 1977 (A 59) 359-61.

13 Whatmough 1931 (PF 236); [tal xu 2; Panciera 1973-4 (E93). The calendar from Cymae (ILS
108 = Ital x111 2, p. 279) is very different and probably not civic.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

842 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

own city, but only differing selections from the official festivals of the
city of Rome. Towns in Italy, unlike those in the provinces, chose to
adhere publicly to the official Roman religious calendar.

Even Italy, however, did not follow all the Roman rules. Some towns
preserved their own religious institutions from pre-Roman days, even
burying the dead within the town, which was impossible at Rome.!24
The ancient towns nearest Rome, who had been Rome’s ‘Latin’ allies in
the republican period, shared some of Rome’s most particular practices;
they claimed indeed that Rome had adopted them from the Latins. Thus
Alba Longa, Lavinium, Tibur and other Latin towns had one or more of
the following: famen Dialis, Vestal Virgins, rex sacrorum and Salii.!25 The
Salii and the rex sacrorum (and, once, the famen Dialis) are also found ina
few towns in northern Italy, but otherwise these offices appear almost
nowhere else in the Roman empire. In addition, there was in the early
empire a new flowering of (allegedly) ancient cults emphasizing the
ancestral ties between the Latin towns and Rome.!% For example, at
Lavinium, where there was no settlement in the late Republic or early
Empire, Italians of equestrian rank from Claudius on held a priesthood
which continued the cult of the Lavinian Penates, participated at
ceremonies of the Latin League on the Alban Hill, and renewed the
treaty with Rome. In the second century a.p., with the renewal of civic
life at Lavinium, local men began to hold the office, which is attested
until the middle of the third century a.p. The Latin towns demonstrate
in an extreme form the similarities between the religious practices of
Rome and Italy.

Outside Italy replications of Roman practices were normal in the early
Empire in two, related contexts: the army and colonies. The body of men
which stood most clearly for Rome in the provinces was the legions,
made up of Roman citizens, and with a religious life that was predomi-
nantly Roman. There was an official Roman calendar for both legions
and auxiliaries that specified the year’s religious festivals. The third-
century archives of an auxiliary cohort, Twentieth Palmyrene, stationed
on the Euphrates frontier included a copy of this calendar, which
demonstrates how the restructured religious system of Augustan Rome
was, in a modified form, repeated in the army.!2? On purely internal
grounds it seems certain that the document is a third-century version ofa
calendar first issued to the legions under Augustus and subsequently also
to the auxiliary forces. The first type of celebrations are in honour of the
gods of Rome: Mars Pater Victor, the Quinquatria, the Neptunalia,

124 Festus, p. 146L s.v. municipalia sacra, Dig. 47.12.3.5.

125 Wissowa 1912 (F 241) 157 0.4, §19-21, 555 n.2; Ladage 1971 (F 166) 8-10.

“126 Wissowa 1915 (F 242); Purcell 1983 (F 49) 167-79; Saulnier 1984 (F 216). E.g. ILS 5004.
'27 Fink, Hoey and Snyder 1940 (B 368); Nock 1932 (F 193).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND HER EMPIRE 843

Salus. The circus-games in Rome founded by Augustus at the dedication
of the temple of Mars Ultor in 2 B.c. were marked in the calendar, as was
the festival of Vesta, another deity patronized by Augustus. The
birthday of Rome was added to the calendar under Hadrian (perhaps
replacing an earlier celebration of the Parilia). Secondly, there were the
celebrations in honour of the reigning emperor, his family and pre-
decessors. We cannot reconstruct the original version of the calendar,
but there is no reason to think that there would have been few such
entries. The marking of transient Augustan events, which were certainly
celebrated in Rome, may easily have been pruned to make way for events
of more contemporary relevance. But the birthdays of all the deified
emperors and the eight deified empresses whose cult was still officially
observed in Rome at this time remained in the calendar. (In fact only
fifteen birthdays appear on the extant part; the others will have been in
the missing section(s).) Only those deified empresses whose cult was no
longer celebrated in Rome certainly do not appear on the Dura calendar.
In other words, there is probably a complete correspondence between
those honoured in the army and those honoured by the Arval Brethren in
Rome. There were also commemorations of the accessions of at least five
previous emperors, going back to Trajan, and of two other events in the
reign of Septimus Severus; the legitimacy of Severus Alexander was thus
strengthened by these ties to the Antonine dynasty to which Septimius
Severus had linked himself. There were celebrations on at least four
occasions of events in the life of the current emperor, all of which would
have been in place under Augustus: for example, his first consulship and
his appointment as pontifex maximus.

The structure of the Dura calendar is thus identical in type to the
religious system of Rome itself. There were the festivals in honour of the
gods, some of which now had clear imperial associations, and there were
the celebrations of emperors past and present. Not that there was any
opposition between the two: on 3 January vows were taken for the safety
of the emperor and the eternity of the empire with sacrifices to the
Capitoline triad. This was the religious system officially enjoined on the
army. Nock argued that there was no official desire to see the soldiers
worshipping the gods listed in the calendar rather than any other gods,!28
but this conclusion does not follow from the fact that officers and men
also worshipped other gods. Rome chose to replicate its own religious
system as the official basis of the Roman army.

Roman colonies were the other principal context in which the Roman
religious system was replicated. This is hardly surprising as the colonists
in the late Republic were landless citizens from Rome and in the early

1% Nock 1952 (F 193) 223. MacMullen 1981 (F 179) 110-11 also denied that there was an official
Roman religion of the army.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

844 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

Empire were ex-soldiers who received land in return for their service.
The regulations for the Caesarian colony at Urso in southern Spain
provide our clearest evidence.!2° The extant copy of the regulations
consists largely of the original rules, but with some additions of the
Augustan period, and it was inscribed in the later first century a.p. The
peculiarly Roman nature of Urso thus continued to provide a framework
for her identity a century and more after the foundation of the colony,
and may have been of particular importance at a time when other Spanish
towns received another, subsidiary Roman status. The foundation of the
colony began with rites that echoed those of the foundation of Rome
itself. The auspices were taken and the founder ploughed a furrow round
the site, lifting the plough where the gates were to be. The act was
commemorated by cities on coin issues a century and more later.!30 The
boundary of a colony, the equivalent of Rome’s pomerium, was indicated
by large marker stones; within it no burial could occur nor monuments
to the dead be built; and the land immediately within the pomerium was
public land which could not be expropriated even by the council.!3!
Then the professional land-surveyors could proceed. One expert wrote
that many surveyors positioned their sextant, after the taking of the
auspices, perhaps in the presence of the actual founder, and oriented
their land divisions in accordance with the direction of the sunrise.!32

The colony at Urso celebrated its major games in honour of the
Capitoline triad (sect. 70-1). This is the earliest evidence for the cult of
the triad outside Italy and strongly suggests that Urso had an actual
Capitolium. The building of a Capitolium, modelled on that at Rome,
was certainly carried out at the creation of some early imperial military
colonies. Both Cologne and Xanten in Lower Germany have Capitolia
dating after their elevation to the rank of colony; the former was built
not long after Cologne became a colony in a.D. 50; the latter was built
perhaps 70 years after Xanten became a colony under Trajan, but in this
case the entire town was rebuilt and work proceeded slowly. The great
temple of Baalbek was begun in the Augustan period at a time when the
town received some Roman colonists. Some of the design is purely
Roman and the expenses of construction (128 monoliths of Egyptian
granite) strongly suggest imperial financing. But the cults were a blend
of Roman and Syrian: Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus, Venus
and Mercury.!33

129 ILS 6087. Cf. D’Ors 1953 (B 222) 167-280; Mackie 1983 (E231) 222-3.

130 Levick 1967 (E 851) 35-7, SNG von Aulock, Index pp. 224, 241.

131 TLS 6308, Capua; Urso sect. 73; Frontin. De controversiis (Corpus agrimensorum Romanorum,
ed. C. Thulin, p. 7; the section is misplaced in the text, but ancient).

132, Hyginus Gromaticus, Constitutio limitum (ed. Thulin, p. 135; also pp. 10-11, 131~2). Cf. Le
Gall 1975 (F 171) 301-8; Dilke 1988 (F 121).

133, Bianchi 1949 (F 95); Barton 1982 (F 86). Cologne and Xanten: Ristow 1967 (F 205); Follmann-
Schulz 1986 (E 579) 735-8, 766-9. Baalbek: Seyrig 1954 (E 1060); Liebeschuetz 1977 (E 1035) 485-9.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND HER EMPIRE 845

The priestly colleges, of pontifices and augurs, were established in
colonies (and municipia) on Roman lines,'%4 and some of the actual rituals
of the colonies were also expressly modelled on Rome. Two colonies
founded (or refounded) in the middle of the first century B.c. illustrate
the point. Narbo in southern France dedicated an altar to the numen of
Augustus in technically accurate religious formulae. Some of the precise
regulations were spelled out; ‘the other rules for this altar and inscrip-
tions shall be the same as those for the altar of Diana on the Aventine’.
The colony of Salona on the Dalmatian coast used almost identical
formulae in dedicating an altar to Jupiter Optimus Maximus. This
procedure is again strictly Roman, with a local pontifex reciting the
words in advance of the presiding magistrate. The same details are given
and the remainder are to follow the rules for the altar of Diana on the
Aventine.'35 The temple of Diana on the Aventine hill in Rome was of
great antiquity — allegedly founded by Servius Tullius ¢. 540 B.c. as a
sanctuary common both to Rome and her Latin allies; inscriptions in
archaic lettering certainly existed in the sanctuary down to the Augustan
period.136 This set of rules was not only ancient; it also governed the
relations between Rome and the outside world, and was thus a singularly
appropriate model for use in Roman colonies. The colonies made
reference to Rome not only in the generation after they were founded (or
refounded), but, in the case of Salona, some 170 years later. For some
colonies at least, Roman rules provided a continuing framework for
their religious identity.

Communities and associations not made up of Roman citizens did not
seek to replicate the Roman system, but responded to Rome in their own
fashions. In the East, Greek towns maintained their traditional religious
systems, worshipping their own selection of the Olympic pantheon, as
Pausanias was to describe in the second century a.p. They also
commonly chose to establish cults of the living Augustus, sometimes in
the context of their ancestral cults. For example, in one Macedonian
town a local citizen volunteered to be priest of Zeus, Roma and
Augustus, and he displayed extraordinary munificence in the monthly
sacrifices to Zeus and Augustus and in the feasts and games for the
citizens.!3” The text is a clear illustration of the integration of the worship
of Augustus within local religious and social structures. In the Latin
West too towns below colonial status sometimes established cults of the
living Augustus, which did not correspond to practice in Rome but did
express their position in the Roman hierarchy.138

14 Ladage 1971 (F 166) 10-11, 32-5, 39-41, §1—4, 79-80, 103; Galsterer 1971 (2 221) 39-61.

1395 IES 112 = FIRA 1173 (Narbo, a.p. 11)—the colony may have been founded originally in the
late second century B.c.; ILS 4907= FIRA 1 74 (Salona, a.p. 137). Cf. CIL xt 361 (Ariminum).

'% Dion. Hal. Ast. Rom. tv.26.5; Festus, p. 164.

137 Arch. Eph. (1983) 75-84, A.D. 1. Cf Price 1984 (F 199). 138 Fayer 1976 (F 134) 213-36.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

846 16. THE PLACE OF RELIGION

The associations in both East and West which united these towns at
the provincial level also established cults that referred to Rome. The
practice began in the East when the Greeks of Asia and Bithynia-Pontus
were given permission in 29 B.c. to establish cults of Roma and
Augustus. Similarly the assembly of the province of Syria also acquired a
priest of Augustus and games.'39 The Greeks thus expressed, in an
entirely acceptable manner, their subordination to Rome. In barbarian
areas of the West, which had just been conquered (as the Romans
hoped), the Romans felt it appropriate to encourage similar institutions.
For example, in north-west Spain soon after the Augustan conquest a
governor established three altars to Augustus which were probably to
serve as centres for three peoples in the north-west area; or, the three
provinces of Gaul conquered by Caesar were united in 12 B.c. ina single
provincial assembly at Lugdunum at an altar of Rome and Augustus,
dedicated by Drusus, Augustus’ step-son.!4 In the case of more
‘civilized’ western provinces, provincial cults were slow to appear, and
followed strictly Roman models. In the two long-established Spanish
provinces, after Augustus’ official consecration in Rome, temples to the
deified Augustus were built, with priests of the same name (flamen) as in
Rome.

The place of religion was the city of Rome. Myths recounted aspects of
the Roman past and related to features of Roman topography; individual
festivals and cults were founded at a particular time and particular place.
For example, the Ara Maxima was established at the time when Hercules
passed through the area and the festival of the Parilia was associated with
Romulus and the creation of Rome. Emphasis on the places at which
cults had to be celebrated went together with an emphasis on the
importance of a boundary round the site of Rome. At the Parilia
Romulus defined a line, the pomerium, round the new city which was of
crucial importance to Augustan consciousness of place, within it lay the
key cults of Rome and only within it were civil auspices possible.
Outside the pomerium were foreign cults, the sphere of military authority,
and the burials of the dead.

The religion of place was adapted to accommodate the figure of the
emperor, Augustus, seen as the second Romulus, and he expressed his
religious position through the traditional priesthoods, through temple
building, and through the celebration of the Secular Games. Though the
individual elements had earlier parallels, their combination was novel
and resulted in a new and remarkably coherent system centred on the
emperor. The religion of place was now restructured round a person.

139 Dio L1.20.6—7. Syria: AE 1976, 678; | Magnesia 149.
1 Spain: Tranoy 1981 (E 244) 327-9. Gaul: Livy, Epit. 139. See further Fishwick 1987 (F 137)
97-168.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ROME AND HER EMPIRE 847

But it is misleading to categorize this as ‘the imperial cult’. The term
arbitrarily separates honours to the emperor from the full range of his
religious activities, and it assumes that there was a single institution of
cult throughout the empire. Within Rome, honours to the emperor have
to be seen in the light of his holding of religious office, while outside
Rome it is wrong to look only for honours to the emperor. In the context
of the army and colonies, real clones of Rome, the copying of other
Roman religious practices was at least as important. And when, as in
Greek towns, religious honours to the emperor were of considerable
significance, they were not replications of Roman honours. Indeed the
Roman system was not designed to be replicated (except in the army and
colonies). Its principal features were specific to the site of Rome, and the
growing emphasis on those features served to distinguish Rome from
other towns and to express the peculiar position of Rome as the capital of
the empire.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 17

THE ORIGINS AND SPREAD
OF CHRISTIANITY!

G. W. CLARKE

I. ORIGINS AND SPREAD

Renewal and reform movements in Palestinian Judaism are well repre-
sented in the first-century generations preceding the fall of Jerusalem
and the destruction of the Temple A.D. 70; they flourished in a religious
context which lacked sharply defined doctrines and practices, where
there was no clearly accepted orthodoxy or authority. Not only was there
a range of distinguishable sects (the most notable being, of course, the
Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes — but there were a number of
others, most prominent among which was the ‘Philosophy of Judas’
with his politically active followers, the Sicarii and Zealots);? there was,
in addition, a bewildering array of individual ascetics, prophets and
preachers who frequently drew in great crowds and commanded
dedicated followings.3 What they often shared in common was a passion
for the Torah and the Temple but what often distinguished them was
their precise definition, in ritual practice, of purity and sacrifice.
Messianic expectations were in the air ~ but they were by no means
shared equally by all, nor was there even agreement on the nature of
those messianic hopes.* Ethical debate went hand-in-hand with debate
over ritual and ceremony, diet and custom, oral law and written law, the
interpretation of the Torah; it was all part of the same process of drawing
the boundaries between purity and pollution, holiness and sin, in
defining for Israel the will of God. Doctrinal debate there certainly was,

'! [have chosen a few generally non-controversial features of the ministry of Jesus: for these one
is necessarily reliant upon the evidence of the synoptic gospels (composed in their present form near
or generally after the destruction of the Temple, the chronological terminus of this study). But for
the most part I have preferred to follow as far as possible the contemporary witness of Paul and his
associates (supplemented, unavoidably, by the additional testimony of Acts). That way I hope to
eschew as much as I can the anachronistic perceptions of the early Christian past (embedded in the
Canon as it became later formed) as Christianity developed its own self-awareness and its own sense
of separate identity and sought legitimation for those developments in its preferred accounts of its

t.
2 Josephus (Vit. 10) experienced all three major sects ‘in order to select the best’. Some of the
smaller sects are registered by inter alios Hegesippus ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.22.7, Justin, Dial. 80, not
to mention the Qumran sectarians. On the Philosophy of Judas see Schiirer 1979 (£ 1207) 1 5 98ff.

3 Some examples are to be found in Joseph. Vit. 11, BJ, 11.4.1 (55 f) = AJ xvis.10.5 ff (271 ff);
BJ 11.13.4 (258 ff) = AJ xx.8.6 (167 f). 4 See Schiirer 1979 (E 1207) 488ff (‘Messianism’).

848

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ORIGINS AND SPREAD 849

especially centred on the after-life, immortality and resurrection, but the
debates at least shared the same religious and cultural preoccupations.
Into such a religious context with its ferment of debate and diversity

fit the movements of John the Baptist (urging a renewal of Israel in the
wilderness and a new passage through the ‘sea’ of the Jordan), and of
Jesus of Nazareth round about A.D. 30 (Christian sources being at pains,
somewhat apologetically, to subordinate the former to the latter). Jesus’
central activities of teaching in the synagogues, attending the Temple
services, keeping the festivals — and disputing with other teachers
(especially represented, at least in later tradition, as sharpening his views
against those of the Pharisees) — these place him in the mainstream of
contemporary religious occupations. And his central concerns fit com-
fortably into the continuing debate within the Judaism of the day, often
characterized as they are with reformist tendencies: concerns for Temple
purity and cleansing (Mark 11:15ff, Matt. 21:12f, Luke 19:45, John
2:14ff), concerns for intentional purity in worship as well as in morals
(e.g. Matt. 5:21ff), concerns for the purity of the person (casting out of
demons/curing the sick), concerns for love of neighbour (extended even
to loving one’s enemies, Matt. 5:43ff), concerns for regulating the sexual
code of behaviour (with a restrictive view on divorce, Matt. 5:31f,
19:3ff), concerns for giving primacy to moral (as opposed to ceremonial)
law (Mark 3:1ff (healing on the Sabbath)). The carpenter from Nazareth
in Lower Galilee, with his chosen inner circle of fishermen (that is to say,
drawn roughly from the ‘small tradesman’ class*) could certainly bluntly
reject Mammon and outspokenly condemn the snares of riches (e.g.
Matt. 6:24 = Luke 16:13), but this did not prevent him from fraternizing
with wealthy tax-gatherers, worldly sinners, women of ill-repute and
Gentiles® (and other social outcasts). For what he fervently preached was
the urgent need for repentance before the impending eschaton’ and the
people to whom he spoke his message were not just the Torah-
observant: sinners, the unrighteous, had even greater need of his call.
There is an increasingly catholic sense of the definition of ‘the children of
Abraham’, the true Israel who might enter upon the kingdom, and a
continuous debate with contemporary ‘Judaisms’ about the sufficient
and necessary conditions for entering upon that kingdom (now envi-
saged as so nigh). These are lines of debate which eventually opened the
way to ‘Gentile Christianity’: did the twelve disciples come symbolically
to represent the twelve tribes of this new Israel so soon to enter upon that

5 Compare the story recorded by Hegesippus ap. Euseb. Hist Eccl. 111.20.1ff (descendants of
Jesus’ family in the time of Domitian are small-holding farmers).

aoe of contact with Gentiles are Mark 7:25ff (cf. Matt. 15:22ff), Mate. 8:5ff (cf. Luke
7:2ff).

7 Was the scandalous prophecy of the destruction of the Temple intended as an indication of this
coming End?

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

8007 ‘ssorg AiszaatuQ aSprquieg © sUTTUGO saroisty espruquiey

“Auensizy) jo pads pur suifizo oy BupezasnyT “a-v Asnquas aszy ayy UT UeDUTIZeNpoW Us2Ise2 YT, ‘17 dep

ORIGINS AND SPREAD 851

kingdom? But what Jesus demanded of his chosen disciples was a
renunciation of family and worldly goods, a single-minded dedication
and a proselytizing zeal to spread the word (e.g. Mark 10:28ff) which
ensured that his movement did not remain confined just to sympathetic
families and pious followers within Lower Galilee and Jerusalem even
after his ignominious death (¢. A.D. 30): their conviction of his resurrec-
tion became the decisive confirmation of his messiahship. The move-
ment from these local Palestinian origins began to spread.

The Pentecostal scene in Jerusalem, as depicted in Acts 2:9ff, has Peter
preaching to Jews who have gathered in Jerusalem from the Diaspora.
There are ‘Parthians, Medes, Elamites; inhabitants of Mesopotamia,
Judaea and Cappadocia, of Pontus and Asia, of Phrygia and Pamphylia,
of Egypt and the parts of Libya around Cyrene; visitors from Rome,
both Jews and proselytes,8 Cretans and Arabs ...’. This appears to be
telling us in general terms that in the view of the writer the Christian
message would be disseminated via these sojourners back to Rome and
to the regions of the eastern Mediterranean beyond the Aegean (and to
the islands of the Mediterranean) as well as along the north African
littoral as far as Cyrenaica. After all, there were present at this scene
‘devout Jews drawn from every nation under heaven’ (2:5). But our
information on the processes of this dissemination is fugitive and
haphazard, leaving us with very little confidence in conceptualizing
accurately the size and social configuration of the Christian communities
formed down to the Flavian era. We can, of course, trace the work of one
such emissary, viz. Paul, and whilst aware that his growing special sense
of mission to the Gentiles will have dictated particular routes and
contacts, particular missionary targets, we have basically to be content to
take his missionary journeyings (their precise chronology and itineraries
do not matter for this exercise) as roughly symptomatic of the types of
community and area where Christian groups (in however minimal a
gathering) became established in the first forty years after the death of
Christ.

Indicative, however, of our general ignorance are Egypt and Cyrene,
mentioned in Acts but lacking, in fact, any specific Pauline connexion.?
Legend (but legend only) was required in later time to provide an

8 The relative frequency of the appearance in the New Testament corpus of ‘godfearers’ (but
more rarely ‘proselytes’) suggests awareness of the significance to the Christian movement of those
non-Jewish sympathizers located more to the margins of Jewish communities. Among many
discussions Schirer 1986 (E 1207) 16off, Reynolds and Tannenbaum 1987 (2 1198) esp. 48ff,
Goodman 1989 (D 132) gaf.

5 Later, the Muratorian Canon (purportedly of the middle of the second century) can register a
palpably fictitious epistle of Paul to the Alexandrians (PL 3.191f). There occurs incidentally in the
Pauline following the learned Jew, Apollos of Alexandria (Acts 18:24), as well as the converted Jews

from Cyrene (Acts 11:20) with whom Paul and Barnabas laboured at Antioch (Acts 11:22ff, 13:13:
their number presumably included the Lucius of Acts 13:1).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

852 17. CHRISTIANITY

apostolic-period pedigree for ‘the Alexandrian churches’.!° And despite
geographical proximity to Jerusalem, despite second-century papyrolo-
gical evidence for the remarkably early and remarkably penetrating
spread of Christian literature between the Delta and Upper Egypt,"! and
despite the inherent likelihood that the Christian message would have
found some sympathetic hearers, however few, in the region (given the
well-documented Jewish communities of Cyrenaica and Alexandria,
displaying a fair degree of permeability with their hellenistic cultural
context),!2 despite all these factors we cannot go any further without
blind conjecture. And we have to compound that conjecture with the
surmise that such nascent Christian communities, still identified as
Jewish, suffered virtual annihilation along with their parent communi-
ties in the later Jewish revolt under Trajan a.p. 115-17. And being
without Pauline details also, we are similarly ignorant of Christian
penetration into the land of the Arabs, let alone into the territory east of
the Euphrates, among Medes and Parthians (despite the considerable
Jewish Diaspora).!3 Paul seems to claim to have sojourned for some
‘three years’ in ‘Arabia’ (elastic term) according to Gal. 1:17f, but this
could well have been in one or other of the southern hellenizing cities of
the Decapolis (and the failure of churches in the area to claim Pauline
foundation suggests that the sojourn may not even have been primarily
missionary in intent).'¢ Even so, we know the land was destined soon to
become a richly Christianized area: already in the northernmost city of
the Decapolis, Damascus, Christians were to be found in the Jewish
community before the time of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:2ff),!5 that is to
say, in the course of the thirties. This chance glimpse is a salutary
reminder of our overall ignorance. Elsewhere in Syria proper (to which
Damascus technically belonged)'® we are relatively well informed about
the rich and flourishing, as well as confidently independent, community
established in the far north of the province, in the great urban complex of

10 Thus, énter alios, Eus. Hist. Eccl. 1.16.1, 2.24 (Mark the evangelist) along with the legendary
Acta Marci: by the early fourth century a martyrium (with tumba, coemeterium and sanctuarium) could
be located in Alexandria in Mark’s memory (Acta Petri, PG 18.461, 462, 464) and wasa site for later
Pilgrimage, Pallad. Hist. Laws. 45.4. (Philoromus).

11 See Roberts 1979 (F 206).

12 Note especially (on Cyrenaica) Liideritz 1983 (B 250), cf. Applebaum 1979 (e 773), and (for
Alexandria) the life and work of Philo (Schiirer 1987 (E 1207) 111.2 809ff) and more generally CPJ 1
(1960).

'3 The legends of Abgar and of Thaddaeus’ mission (e.g. Eus. Hist. Eccl. 1.13, 11.1.6) reflect the
spread to Edessa and into Mesopotamia but it is well to remember that such spread was to be erratic
in character (e.g. Carrhae, nearby to Edessa, was long to be a largely pagan stronghold, Theodoret
Hist. Eccl. rv.15, Egeria 20). 4 On Pella see below.

15 Some notion of the size of the Jewish community can be derived from Josephus’ figures for
those claimed to have been slain in the Jewish revolt a generation later. BJ 11.561 (10,500), v11.368
(18,000).

'6 In Paul’s day (2 Cor. 2:32) Damascus had been under an ethnarch of the Nabataean king of
Arabia, Aretas IV: by imperial concession?

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ORIGINS AND SPREAD 853

Antioch (on the Orontes), thanks again to the Pauline connexion, for
Paul seems to have spent some twelve years or so ‘in the regions of Syria
and Cilicia’ according to Gal. 1:21, 2:1 (cf. Acts 11:25f, 13:1, 15:35) — this
should include most or all of the decade of the forties. Notoriously,
Antioch is depicted by Paul (Gal. 2:1ff) as well as by the author of Acts
(11:20ff) as the fons et origo of ‘Gentile Christianity’: here the process of
Christian self-identification is declared to have its beginning. But as for
the rest of the country we have to be content to know that there were
brethren of Gentile origin in Syria itself besides Antioch (Acts 15:23, cf.
15:41) — but whether these were to be found scattered among the village
communities typical of the settlement pattern of the Syrian countryside
or in the great Syrian cities like Apamea, Epiphania or Beroea we simply
do not know.!7 All we can say is that if Paul was involved in theig
foundation!® his practice was beyond doubt to bring his missionary
efforts to bear on urban areas of concentration, particularly where (if we
follow the narrative of Acts) there were Jewish synagogues (and Gentile
Jewish-sympathizers). Certainly the Syrian Christian communities were
soon to prove to be a rich source of extra-canonical texts.

By contrast, Palestine itself has more in the way of details recorded,
not unnaturally given the nature of our evidence. But where we can, by
means of incidental information, flesh out ‘the churches in Judaea’ (Gal.
1:22, cf. 1 Thes. 2:14, Acts 11:29 (‘the brethren dwelling in Judaea’), we
happen to find predominating the seaboard cities and ports (with their
mobile and mixed populations, strongly under the influence of — if not
dominated by — hellenistic culture) such as Sidon (Acts 27:3), Tyre (Acts
21:4), Ptolemais (Acts 21:7) —and Phoenicia in general (Acts 11:19, 15:3)
— Caesarea (Acts 10, 21:8) and Joppa (Acts 9:36, 9:42f, 10:23).!9 In
Caesarea, in fact, the procurator’s headquarters, we are presented with an
emblematic cameo, the miraculous conversion of Cornelius (a god-
fearer), a centurion of the cohors Italica, symbol of Gentile authority (Acts
10) — along with his household (10:2, 10:44ff). But whilst our chance
information certainly highlights such hellenized cities we cannot exclude
the smaller towns and village communities dispersed throughout Gali-
lee, Judaea and Samaria — in fact we have specific mention of villages in
Samaria (Acts 8:25) evangelized by Peter and John following on the
missionary activities of Philip and a more general scattering of preachers

17 Our next information is not until the early second century when Ignatius, bishop of Antioch,
can refer to churches (plural) with bishops, in the immediate neighbourhood of Antioch, ad Philad.
10 (? including the port of Seleucia, Acts 13:4).

'8 Other known missionaries at Antioch are converted Jews from Cyprus and Cyrene (Acts
11:20), Barnabas from Jerusalem but by birth a Cypriot (Acts 4:36, 11:22), the Gentile Titus (Gal.
2:2f), Simeon called Niger, Manaen, Lucius of Cyrene (Acts 13:1), John Mark (Acts 12:25, from
Jerusalem) — as weil as visitors from Jerusalem (Silas, Judas Barsabbas (Acts 15:22), Cephas (Gal.
2:11), Agabus (Acts 11:27f). '9 For these cities see Schirer 1979 (e 1207), 11 §23.7, 9, 11.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

854 17. CHRISTIANITY

of the Word through the country districts of Judaea and Samaria in the
aftermath of Stephen’s death (Acts 8:1, 8:4, 11:19, cf. Acts 15:3 (Paul and
Barnabas travelling among the followers, through Samaria)). We can be
precise only about the town of Lydda (close to Joppa), Acts 9:33, 9:35,
on the road from Joppa to Jerusalem, and the coastal plain of Sharon,
Acts 9:35, during a missionary tour of Peter’s; inland Galilee, figuring so
prominently in Christ’s own mission, fades completely from our view
(but note Mark 15:7 hinting at continuing evangelization: ‘He [the risen
Lord] will go on before you into Galilee and you will see him there’).
Indeed if we are to judge from the cases where Christianity failed to
establish itself with any significant presence even by the early fourth
century — in, for example, such major inland towns as Sepphoris or
Tiberias, Epiph. Adv. Haeres. 30:1120 — then we must surmise that
resistance could be strong, if not complete, in some of the more
traditional Jewish towns and cities: we would do well to take with
caution such jingoistic passages as Acts 21:20 (‘myriads of believers
among the Jews’) and regard the following in Palestine as neither
particularly numerous nor evenly distributed: agreed, our sources force
us to view the expansion as basically an urban phenomenon but we must
allow for at least some haphazard establishment in the countryside also.
Even so, the holy city of Jerusalem is the focus of attention in our
sources, firstly under the leadership of James, the brother of the Lord
(Acts 15:13, Gal. 2:9), succeeded, according to tradition, by Simeon, son
of Clopas, a cousin (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 11.11, cf. 1v.22.4). In Acts we are
carefully provided with staggered statistics emphasizing the regular but
spectacular growth of the church in the city, presented as the centre of
Christendom: in 2:41 some 3,000 converts are added in a day, 2:47 sees
daily increases, by 4:4 the numbers have reached about 5,000, there are
more by 6:1, 6:7 attests to further rapid additions (including a large
number of the priests), and general growth is recorded in 9:31 and yet
again in 12:24, and by 15:5 we find some of the Pharisees are believers. So
it comes as no surprise that in 21:20 it can be claimed that many
thousands among the Jews have become believers. We do hear of
(dissatisfied) Greek-speaking Jews (from the Diaspora?) in 6: 1ff and it is
Paul (it is emphasized) who talks and debates in Jerusalem with the
Greek-speaking Jews in 9:28 — but these are pointedly exceptional,
leaving us with the clear and deliberate impression of an overwhelm-
ingly Jewish-Christian community, predominantly Hebrew-speaking,
in which the many thousands among the Jews who have become
believers are also ‘all zealots for the Law’ (Acts 21:20). Any Gentile
converts are allowed to be visible only outside Jerusalem (Acts 10) and

2 Though we must be aware of fluctuating populations over time, and changing levels of
tolerance, Schiirer 1979 (E 1207), 11 §23.31 and 33.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ORIGINS AND SPREAD 855

are made to be a cause for astonishment to Jewish believers from
Jerusalem (Acts 10:45, 11:2ff) and for scandal (Acts 15:5): we are left in
no doubt that until the ‘Apostolic Decree’ any such Gentile converts
were obliged to submit to circumcision and to ‘the observance of the
Law’ (Acts 15:1, 15:5) — however that was interpreted. We cannot go
beyond the picture thus provided for us — and for what it is worth, the
enigmatic Epistle of James (virtually a Jewish document) accords.”! And
it also accords with the whole tendency of Acts that despite the claims of
growth for the Jerusalem church, the church in Antioch, with its clear-
headed and divinely sanctioned Gentile mission, is represented as the
more enterprising and the more prosperous (Acts 11:29): that may well
have been the case.

So far we have been pressing into service for the most part the
testimony of the Acts of the Apostles, itself composed possibly several
generations after these events and composed moreover with a disarming
tendency to telescope events and with a sharply focused historicizing
agenda. From now on Paul himself, along with his associates and
disciples, become our almost exclusive guide together with that (decepti-
vely and tendentiously coherent) narrative of Acts. That is to say that we
rely on the Paul of the seven indubitably genuine letters — though some
of these may already be themselves composite documents (1 Thess., 1
Cor., 2 Cor., Gal., Rom., Phil., Philem.). The post-Pauline or deutero-
Pauline epistles (2 Thess., Eph., Col. including the Pastorals, 1 Tim., 2
Tim., Titus) provide, on the whole, merely general and corroborative
testimony.22 And, notoriously, even of Paul’s own missionary work we
can glimpse but a partial view (though with some locations — such as
Corinth — fortuitously visible to us under a disproportionately searching
light). Thus even though Paul spent so long in the vicinity of his home
city of Tarsus and its province of Cilicia— apparently some dozen years at
least, Gal. 1:21, 2:1 ~ we are entirely without details of the centres of
population he may have visited, of any success his mission may have had,
let alone knowing with whom.” All we can say is that the Cilician
churches are linked closely with Syrian Antioch. They share in the
Pauline attitude towards Gentile salvation, their congregations defini-
tely include Gentile Christians (Acts 15:23, cf. 15:41). If we move on
westwards around the coastline in Pamphylia we find preaching only at

21 Consult, for example, Evans 1970 (F 132) 264f.

2 The Pastorals, for example, yield Corinth (2 Tim. 4:20), Troas (2 Tim. 4:13), Ephesus (1 Tim.
1:3, 2 Tim. 1:18, 2 Tim. 4:12), Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20) and Galatia (2 Tim. 4:10)~all otherwise attested.
But they do record, additionally, Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), Dalmatia (2 Tim. 4:10) and Crete (Titus
1:5): on these see below.

2 Three syggencis (‘kinsmen’) of Paul’s are sent greetings in Rome (from Corinth), Rom. 16:7,
16:11 (Andronicus, Junia[s}], Heroidion) and three further syggeneis in Corinth send greetings to
Rome, Rom. 16:21 (Lucius, Jason and Sosipatros). Are they fellow-Cilictans? Throughout I assume

— though this is far from uncontested — that Rom. 16 is an integral part of the original letter to the
Romans.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

85.6 17. CHRISTIANITY

Perge (Acts 14:25, cf. 13:13), but for Lycia or Isauria we know nothing.
Inland, however, in the Roman province of Galatia we reach Pauline
country. In Lycaonia we encounter (in Acts) three cities. At Iconium
(Acts 14:1—6, 21), a large number of converts are recorded among the
Jews and Greeks as the result of a visit by Paul and Barnabas to the
synagogue: the ‘Greeks’ are manifestly, in some sense, already ‘god-
fearers’ (Acts 14:1). At the neighbouring town of Lystra (to the south
west of Iconium) Paul and Barnabas are depicted amidst an initially
adoring and enthusiastic native audience (Acts 14:8ff), with stalwart
converts (Acts 14:20), and at Derbe (to the south east of Iconium) they
are seen winning ‘many converts’ (Acts 14:21).”4 It is worth noting that
this missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas included the surrounding
country (perichoros) of these cities (Acts 14:6) and that they are able to
report back to Antioch how God had ‘opened up the gates of faith to the
Gentiles’ (Acts 14:27). Whilst this is all information carefully patterned
for our benefit, it is worth registering that the mission seems to have
reached tribal areas (and not only Jewish communities within hellenized
cities — which could, indeed, boast of Roman colonial status). The return
journey recorded in Acts 16:1—5 by Paul and Silas sees further increases.
In Pisidia we have instanced Antioch only (Acts 13:14ff), where Paul
is made to address (successfully) in the synagogue a mixed audience of
Jews and Gentile godfearers (Acts 13:26, 43).25 Further northwards we
have the journey ‘through the Phrygian and Galatian country’ towards
Bithynia. No towns are specified and (though it is an insoluble conun-
drum) Paul’s ‘Galatians’ may well refer to tribal communities and
villages in this area (rather than to the hellenized cities included in the
Roman province of Galatia to the south and west). We have to allow that
Pauline converts were not confined to such cities — though (to our
knowledge) he would appear to have been most effective within them.
As for Phrygia, though Acts is unspecific, we can reasonably rely on the
three churches of the Lycus valley mentioned in the Letter to the
Colossians, viz. Colossae (Col. 1:2), Laodicea (Col. 2:1, 4.12-17, ef.
Apoc. 3:14ff) and nearby Hierapolis (Col. 4:13, 16) — and there may have
been other communities (Col. 2.1). At the time of writing Paul is
depicted as never having visited the congregations (Col. 2:1) but the
24 Timothy is one named Christian, from Lystra (of mixed Jewish and Greek parentage), Acts
16:1-3 (z Tim. 1:5 purports to record further family details): Gaius is another (Acts 20:4), from
robe,
se had made straight for Pisidian Antioch (via Perge) from Cyprus. Did the converted
proconsul of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus, provide Paul with entrée into the colony (the family of Sergius
Paulus having close links with that city)?
2 The addressees of the Letter to the Galatians were once Gentile pagans, now tempted to revert
to pagan ways (Gal. 4:8—11) and under pressure to submit to circumcision and other observances of

the Law (e.g. Gal. s:2ff). They did not easily fit with the Gentile godfearers and the Jews
characterized as the converts (say) at Iconium or Pisidian Antioch.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ORIGINS AND SPREAD 857

churches are declared to have been founded (Col. 1:7—8) and supported
(Col. 4:7ff) by his associates:27 the addressees appear inclined to some
form of Jewish-hellenistic syncretism (Col. 2:8, 15 ff).

But further northwards again, in Bithynia and Pontus, we must
remain in ignorance of any establishment, Paul being (mysteriously)
thwarted of reaching there (Acts. 16:7). But the later evidence of 1 Pet.
1:1 (addressed to the elect dwelling in ‘Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia
and Bithynia’) as well as of Pliny, Ep. x.96.6 (Christian converts of over
twenty years’ standing in Pontus — that is, dating back to the eighties) is
indication enough that evangelization cannot have been long
thwarted.?8 Likewise for Cappadocia, to the east of Galatia. We need to
recall that Jews from Pontus and Cappadocia are represented as
witnesses at the Pentecostal scene in Acts 2:9.

It is clear that down towards the Asia Minor seaboard Paul made the
great cosmopolitan city of Ephesus, the province’s metropolis, his
headquarters for missionary work along the Aegean littoral, whether in
person or through his now growing following of associates (as in the
Lycus valley).29 We see him first at Ephesus on a brief visit (on his way
back from Greece to Syria, in the early fifties) sounding out the vigorous
and sizable Jewish population (Acts 18:19f). By the time he returns by
the overland route (i.e. via Galatia and Phrygia) in about the mid-fifties
we are given to believe that the Alexandrian Jew Apollos has already
made converts in the synagogue (Acts 18:24ff). But Acts is careful to
establish that they have been imperfectly instructed, they are without the
Holy Spirit —and they number but a dozen (Acts 19:1—7): it is Paul who is
shown to bring the full Faith. Acts is also at pains to emphasize that the
Pauline mission was aimed initially at the Ephesian Jews but after three
months of Jewish resistance and hostility, Paul opened his message (in
the lecture hall of Tyrannus) to a more general audience and eventually it
was heard by “all the inhabitants of the province of Asia, Jew and Greek
alike’ (Acts 19:10), to the discomfiture of both diehard Jews (the story of
the seven sons of Sceva, Acts 19:13ff) and diehard Greeks (the story of
Demetrius and the silversmiths, Acts 19:23ff). Whilst Acts declares a
missionary period of some two years, with evangelizing ‘not only at
Ephesus but also in practically the whole of the province of Asia’ (Acts
19:26, cf. 19:10), we are not given details of other locations but we do
learn, incidentally, of Christian communities at the ports of Miletus

27 Ep. Philemon (certainly Pauline, unlike Col.) also records many at these same names. Consult
Hemer 1986 (B 80) 178ff on these cities of the Lycus.

% Note, incidentally, the Christian Jew, Aquila of Pontus, Acts 18:2.

2 They include, during this period, Priscillaand Aquila (Acts 18:26). Timothy and Erastus (Acts
19:22), Gaius and Aristarchus (Acts 19:29). Col 4:7ff preserves some further names (cf. Philem. 1f,
11, 23f).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

858 17. CHRISTIANITY

(Acts 20:15ff, cf. 2 Tim. 4:20) and of Troas (Acts 20:5 ff, 2 Cor. 2:12, cf. 2
Tim. 4:13). The focus remains for us Paul, and his work at Ephesus.

But the ‘seven cities’ of the Apocalypse should be guide enough to the
sorts of other communities where Christians were soon to reside. Besides
Ephesus (Apoc. 2:1ff) they included not only the large urban centres of
Smyrna (Apoc. 2:8ff), Pergamum (Apoc. 2:12ff) and Sardis (Apoc. 3:1ff)
but more minor towns such as Thyatira (Apoc. 2:18ff) and Philadelphia
(Apoc. 3.7ff). And we could reasonably surmise that there were more.*?
Paul and his associates were not the only bearers of the message in Asia,
whether it arrived via itinerant missionaries or mobile believers return-
ing home.*! Asia Minor was well on the way to becoming the heartland
of Hellenic Christianity. And whilst Acts has Paul’s mission in Asia
aimed first at Jew, and then at Greek as well as Jew, the deutero-Pauline
encyclical letter to Christians of Asia (known as the Letter to the
Ephesians) is certainly addressed to an audience envisaged primarily as
Gentile (‘you, Gentiles as you are in the flesh, you called the uncircum-
cised’, Eph. 2:11; ‘I, Paul, who in the cause of you Gentiles am prisoner
of Christ’, Eph. 3.1). These Gentiles are seen in the Haustafel/ section of
the letter (5:22ff, a section devoted to moral instructions on the proper
ordering of the Christian household) as established families, as hierarchi-
cally structured Christian households, not only of husbands, wives and
children but of masters and slaves as well (6:5 ff): here Christianity has
moved, at least for some, into the slave-owning levels of Hellenic society
(cf. Ep. Philemon, at Colossae).

We now cross the Aegean to Macedonia and Achaea: it is a crossing
and landfall which Acts makes into a significant and solemn moment
(16:6ff), perhaps to be dated to the end of the forties. Here six
communities are known to us. At his initial major landfall in Macedonia,
at Philippi on the Via Egnatia, Paul, accompanied by Silas (and
presumably Timothy), encounters for the first time a population
predominantly Latin in character (it was a Roman colony which had
received two groups of veteran settlers) — and he encounters the sort of
reception and resistance that is to be characteristically Roman (‘they are
advocating customs whichit is not lawful for us, being Romans, to adopt
and follow’, Acts 16:21, cf. Phil. 2:2). Physical assault by the city
magistrates (strategoi) and temporary imprisonment follow — until,
famously, Paul and Silas (= Silvanus) reveal their Roman citizenship
(Acts 16:37ff). Acts has the new arrivals seek out on the Sabbath ‘the

* Two strong candidates are, of course, Magnesia on the Meander and Tralles, to whom Ignatius
writes early in the second century.

31 One thinks, for example, of Lydia the purple-seller, from Thyatira but domiciled at Philippi at
the time of Acts 16:14f, 40.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ORIGINS AND SPREAD 859

place of prayer’3? outside the city gate — Jews are marginalized in this
Romanized community — and, symbolically, they win over the house-
hold ofa godfearer (Lydia) as they do later the household of their Gentile
gaoler. Jewish converts go unmentioned; and they are absent from the
hortatory Letter to the Philippians except for the attack (3.2ff) on those
enemies (‘those dogs’) who insist on circumcision and other external
observances. Here was formed a community notably generous in its
contributions both to Paul (Phil. 4:15 ff, cf. 2 Cor. 11:8f) and for the
Jerusalem collection (2 Cor. 8:1f, 9:2ff (‘the churches in Macedonia’), cf.
Rom. 15:26), but there are no grounds for us to visualize it as a
particularly sizable Christian group.

The missionary itinerary has Paul then aim for the next Jewish
community, in the provincial headquarters and the large trading city of
Thessalonica. Again Acts is careful to record Paul’s habit of attending
the synagogue and to note that a few (only) of the local Jews are
persuaded (was Jason, and his household, one such?, Acts 17:5), whereas
a great number of the Greek godfearers as well as a good number of the
leading (Gentile) women (Acts 17:4)%3 are declared won over: indeed
convert Jews go unaddressed in the Letters to the Thessalonians (note
especially 1 Thess. 1:9, 2:14ff envisaging a Gentile readership). And we
are left in no doubt of the virulent hostility roused in the Jewish
community generally (Acts 17:5ff, cf. 1 Thess. 1:14ff, 3:2f), a hostility
which hounds Paul, Silas and Timothy even at Beroea (reached via
Pella?), their next halting-place, known to us only from Acts (17:10ff).
And this, despite a warmer reception in the local synagogue of Beroea,
with correspondingly, many Jewish converts as well as a considerable
number of Greek women of high status and men* (Acts 17:12). Itis well
to be mindful of the rich variations in contemporary Judaism and hence
in receptivity to Christian missionaries.

Apart from these three centres we have no knowledge of other
locations to which Paul might be referring when he mentions (in 1
Thess. 4:10) ‘all the brethren in the whole of Macedonia’. For our one
source (Acts again, 17:14f) has Paul travel on hastily to Athens in the
province of Achaea where he is presented (as standard) speaking with
Jews and godfearers (in the synagogue) and with passers-by (in the agora)
before being given the celebrated Hellenic apo/ogia for Christianity in the
presence of the Areopagus, guardian council of the city’s pagan religious
traditions (Acts 17:21ff): two resulting converts are named (Dionysius,

32 On the use of prosenche here see Schiirer 1979 (E 1207) 11 439f, 444f.
33 Nevertheless the general injunction (paralleled elsewhere) of 2 Thess. 3:12 to work away
quietly earning one’s living suggests a predominantly working audience.

¥ Presumably Sopatros son of Pyrrhus (Acts 20:4) was one of these.
35 1 Thess. 3:1, 3:6 merely has Paul waiting in Athens for Timothy.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

860 17. CHRISTIANITY

Damaris) representing the fledgling Athenian church (Acts 17:34) —
though it would be many centuries before Athens was to become in any
sense a major Christian centre.

And so on to Corinth for a mission that was to last a year and a half
(Acts 18:11) and for what appears to be, on our information, Paul’s most
penetrating evangelization, with high-status converts, Jews (the
archisynagogus Crispus,*’ Acts 18:8, 1 Cor. 1:14), godfearers (Titius Iustus,
Acts 18:7) as well as Gentiles (Gaius, 1 Cor. 1:15, Rom. 16:23; Erastus,
Rom. 16:23 — city oikonomos (administrator); Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1:16, 1
Cor. 16:15),38 though it is well to bear in mind that Paul can characterize
the congregation as including ‘not many men of wisdom by any human
standard, not many powerful, not many high-born’, 1 Cor. 1:26. A later
and shorter return visit is recorded in Acts 20:1ff (cf. 2 Cor. 1:15f; witha
third visit projected in 2 Cor. 12:14, 13:1). The mission is represented in
Acts as being directed first to Jew and to Gentile godfearer and then,
with a conscious shift, concentrated upon the Gentile population after
repudiation by the Jewish community (the cameo scene before the
Roman governor of Achaea, Gallio, in Acts 18:12ff, datable to the very
early fifties, highlights the violence of the separation). And indeed the
Letters to the Corinthians address basically Gentile sensibilities (‘you
know how when you were still pagans you were swept off to those dumb
heathen gods’, 1 Cor. 12:2). The impression these letters give us is of a
sizable and diverse congregation clustering around the patronage of a
number of different households,3? with local loyalties and rivalries
revealed when they all assemble together (‘I heard that when you meet as
a congregation you fall into sharply divided groups’, 1 Cor. 11:18): we
can discern a variety of preachers (for example, Apollos 1 Cor. 1:12, the
‘super-apostles’ 2 Cor. 11:5, 12:11), with Paul feeling under distinct
threat that his public performances are felt not to measure up to the
professional epideictic standards demanded of Hellenic rhetoric (2 Cor.
10:10ff) — clearly to the taste of some. We glimpse in Corinth a bustling
and turbulent trading and administrative centre, open to ideas and to
travellers — Paul is able to write to the church in Rome from Corinth well

% See Frantz 1988 (£ 827) 18ff. In 1 Cor. 16:15 we meet Stephanas and his household as the ‘first
converts in Achaea’: are we to suppose they were in Athens at the time of Paul’s visit?

37 On archisynagogus Schiirer 1979 (E 1207) 1 434ff.

38 To judge from the reception they give Paul on his arrival in Corinth we probably ought to
surmise that Prisca and Aquila, the much-travelled Jewish artisans recently come from Rome, are
already Christians (Acts 18:1ff, cf. Acts 18:18, Rom. 16:3ff) — though it was not to the writer’s
purpose to emphasize this fact, and Paul feels free to boast in 2 Cor. 10:14 ‘we were the first to reach
you [Corinthians] in preaching the gospel of Christ’.

39 To the households of Stephanas, Titius Iustus, Gaius, Prisca and Aquila (already noted) we
should probably add that of Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11). It was a fact worth recording that Gaius could act as
‘host of the whole church’ in Corinth, Rom. 16:23.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ORIGINS AND SPREAD 861

acquainted (whether in person or by reputation) with some twenty-eight
individuals currently domiciled there (relying on Rom. 16:3ff). The
Second Letter to the Corinthians is addressed to ‘the church of God at
Corinth together with all the saints throughout the whole of Achaea’ (2
Cor. 1:1), but apart from Athens the only other Achaean Christian group
known to us is nearby at Cenchreae, the port of Corinth on the Saronic
Gulf (to which congregation belonged Phoebe, ‘deacon of the church’
and ‘patroness (prostastis) of many’, Rom. 16:1f). We know of no jour-
ney further to the south of Greece, into the Peloponnese, and whilst
Paul can claim in Rom. 15:19 ‘I have completed the preaching of the
gospel of Christ from Jerusalem as far round as Illyricum’ we know of no
voyaging into western Greece or the Adriatic.

As for the Mediterranean islands, even Crete, mentioned at the
Pentecostal scene, fails to score any mention save in the (later) Epistle to
Titus. There Paul is claimed to have visited the island, leaving Titus
temporarily behind ‘to institute elders in each city’ (1:5). At the very least
we can say Crete is the type of island believed to have fallen within the
Pauline missionary orbit, with urban Christian communities fully
established and with converts amongst the Jewish population (1:10—-14).
Others of Paul’s missionary entourage are expected to be calling by
(3:13): Crete was a natural port of call on the sea-lanes for missionaries on
the move just as was Cyprus (cf. Acts 27:4, 27:78). And at least for
Cyprus we are on firmer ground in claiming an early missionary visit by
Paul (in company with the Cypriot Barnabas, and John Mark) with the
towns of Salamis and Paphos specified (Acts 13:5—6). The mission was
aimed ‘at the synagogues of the Jews’4! and included, accordingly and
pointedly, the confutation of a charlatan but influential Jewish sorcerer
(13:6ff); Barnabas and Mark make a return missionary journey in Acts
15:39. But even (apparently) prior to Paul’s mission, Jewish converts,
scattering from Jerusalem after Stephen’s death, had brought the good
news to receptive Jews on the island (Acts 11:19).4? But of the Aegean
and Ionian islands generally, there is not a word, though Paul’s voyaging
brought him in passing contact with a number (e.g. Acts 20:14f, 21:1ff).
And it is fortuitous that we learn of an enforced sojourn by Paul on Malta

® For what it is worth Titus 3:12 represents Paul as planning to winter at Nicopolis on the coast
of Epirus and z Tim. 4:10 can report that Titus has gone to Dalmatia, further up the coastline. We
have to wait until the early third century for the next Christian reference to Nicopolis: Origen found
there a unique version of the Old Testament — which might suggest a somewhat early Christian
connexion? (Eus. Hist. Ecel. v1.16.2).

41 Note the convert Cypriot Jews who bring the message from Jerusalem to Gentiles at Antioch,
Acts 11:20.

42 One such could be ‘Mnason of Cyprus, a disciple from the early days’ later found domiciled in
Jerusalem (Acts 21:16). As so often with the testimony of Acts, the chronology of events is
controversial.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

862 17. CHRISTIANITY

(Acts 28:1—11)*3 as well as an incidental landfall on Sicily (at Syracuse:
Acts 28:12).44 There, no Christians welcome Paul, unlike the reception
accorded a little later at Puteoli (Acts 28:14) or earlier at Sidon (Acts
27:3): we should deduce that Christian communities were yet to be
established. The impression to be gained is that whilst some regular
ports — such as Troas (2 Cor. 2.12f, cf. Acts 16:11, 20:5ff), Cenchreae
(Rom. 16:1-2) or Puteoli (Acts 28:14) — already had some Christian
presence, this was not by any means yet a regular feature. And for all we
know such major port-cities in the western Mediterranean as Carthage,
Tarraco and Massilia, not to mention the western provinces of north
Africa, Spain (despite Paul’s declared aspiration, to reach the western
limits of the Roman world, Rom. 15:24, 28),*5 and Gaul, still lay entirely
outside any evangelization. After all Spain is mentioned by Paul in a
context of ‘places where the very name of Christ has not been heard’
(Rom. 15:20). And were there by chance merchant travellers to these
ports who were Christians or any early Christian pioneers in these
provinces the memory of them faded fast, and completely: it would not
be without significance that the western Mediterranean generally lacked
established Jewish communities at this date.

And finally, Italy and Rome. By the time of Paul’s arrival (very late
fifties a.p.?), there was already formed a congregation at the port of
Puteoli on the Gulf of Naples, the major Italian harbour for traffic with
the Orient (Acts 28:14). And of course Paul found in Rome itself a
Christian community to welcome him (Acts 28:15): he had previous
knowledge of or acquaintance with a number of its members (if we rely
on Rom. 16:3ff) — and in his protreptic letter to the Roman brethren Paul
had gone so far as to declare that the story of their faith was being told
throughout all the world (Rom. 1:8). Acts is at pains to depict Paul
making, once again, an initial effort — politely and patiently — to convince
the Roman Jewish community (and it was a large one) but meeting with
only mixed success (Acts 28:17ff). As we are given our final view of Paul
teaching ‘openly and unhindered’ under house-custody awaiting trial,
we are left with the deliberate impression that the two full years of
waiting were spent largely with Gentile hearers (Acts 28:25ff). To a
degree the letter to the Romans corroborates: it shows careful awareness

4 Acts, typically, places emphasis on the respect Pau! wins of ‘the first man of the island, named
Publius’ and on Paul’s wonder-working (Acts 28:78ff): of actual converts we hear nothing.

“ It is characteristic of our patchy information that we have to wait until the middle of the third
century for the first firm evidence of Christianity in Sicily, [Cyprian], Ep. 30.5.2.

45 Later documents understand the aspiration to have been realized, Clem. ad Cor. 5.7, Murat.
Canon PL 3.181, Jerome, Comment. in Cap. xi. Isai. PL 24.151.

4 It would not be unreasonable to conjecture that in other similar Italian port-cities such as Ostia
— with the same combination of resident Jewish community and exposure to frequent travellers —
some Christian cell, however small, might also have been found. But it must remain conjecture.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ORIGINS AND SPREAD 863

of the mixed nature of the Roman congregation with its firm message
that there is no longer distinction to be made between Jew and Greek. As
for the size of this community, whilst we cannot go beyond Tacitus’
multitudo ingens of Christian victims destined to fall in 64 A.D. we are left
with the impression of a substantial community, probably grouped
around a number of households as at Corinth‘? (not unreasonably given
the urban sprawl) and, as at Corinth, themselves subject to rivalries and
jealousies (or so Clement of Rome, Ep. ad Corinth. 6 obscurely implies,
cf. Rom. 16:17ff).

Sporadic and fitful as our evidence manifestly is, adherents to this new
religious movement had become, by the end of the sixties, as broadly
spread in race and social class as they were scattered geographically.
Being dispersed from Arabia in the East to Rome in the West, they spoke
in a babel of tongues: Hebrew, Aramaic (and other Semitic languages),
Greek, Latin (as at Philippi, Rome), local vernaculars (as in Galatia, Acts
14:11, and compare the Pentecostal scene of Acts 2:9ff). These reflected
the range of country and nation of their origins, though Aramaic,
Hebrew and Greek predominated (and our evidence is biased towards
the latter). They dwelt not so much in country districts — villages and
rural areas are not well represented (Palestine and Galatia providing the
clearest examples, and rural penetration was to continue to be erratic, but
not by any means unknown, over the succeeding centuries). The city,
and the hellenized city at that, is where they characteristically dwelt, and
the cities where we can see them — though they vary greatly in size and
sophistication — for the most part (but not exclusively) lay on major
routes of traffic and trade, or were reasonably accessible from them (as in
the Lycus valley). And within those cities — to judge from the cases
where we get status indicators — they appear to have formed congre-
gations that might combine all but the highest levels of social stratifica-
tion: that is not altogether surprising or radical when secular collegia can
manifest similar combinations of class*® and when the church-houses in
which they characteristically met could operate under the prevailing
patronage ethos, with comers able to find some familiar place or accepted
social role. In all this it is easy to exaggerate the extent to which
Christians might be located up the social scale — notoriously, the more
socially prominent tend to be also the more visible in our sources.
Nevertheless, in the city where we can form the most focused picture,

‘7 There is a congregation at the Roman house of Prisca and Aquila and note the household
groups of Aristobulus and Narcissus (Rom. 16:3f, 11) as well as the further two identifiable and
separate groups in Rom. 16:14f. And some ethnic enclaves could be expected.

‘8 For example, the association of fish-traders at Ephesus (J. Eps. 1a. 20, of Neronian date) attests
some eighty-nine members ranging from Roman citizens (themselves both rich and poor), through
Greeks of non-servile status, to slaves in proportions of ¢. 50 per cent, ¢. 45 per cent, ¢. 4 per cent.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

864 17. CHRISTIANITY

viz. Corinth (though it, in turn, may well not be the most typical) we can
discern not only men with households of notable substance (Gaius, as
well as Crispus, Jason, Stephanus, Titius Iustus) and a local office-holder
(Erastus) but converts with some social and intellectual pretensions
(who clearly found Paul deficient on a number of counts, both in
accomplishments and in deportment). But there were as well, equally
clearly in this congregation, have-nots, dependants upon patronal
largesse (1 Cor. 11:20ff) in addition to slaves (1 Cor. 7:21). And all these
were caught up together in the same religious movement (all too
obviously not without consequential tensions): even so, they have a
remarkable appetite for, or at least they are thought capable of following,
complex theological exposition and argumentation.‘ Paul himself does
not seem to have aimed specifically at the proletarian down-and-outs as
his missionary target — rather, the established households of the urban
artisans and the middle-to-lower-range traders and businessmen. Even
Paul’s own tent-making smacks of a self-conscious act of making himself
accessible to the public in the market-place (though his professed
motives might be somewhat different).5°

Whilst converts might range from Pharisees, still zealous for the
observance of the Law, in Jerusalem to Greeks, sophisticated in the
Hellenic philosophic traditions, in Athens (as perhaps Dionysius the
Areopagite), nevertheless throughout, it is the Jewish sympathizers,
godfearing Gentiles located somewhat to the margins of Judaism, who
to our perception of things play a pivotal role: they appear to be found —
and in significant numbers to be ready to lend an open ear — wherever
synagogues flourished in the: Diaspora: we must allow for a fair degree of
interpenetration between Judaism and Gentile society around the
Mediterranean at this period whilst aware, as always, that there will be
regional differences (and sympathy with Judaism may diminish systema-
tically as we move westwards, progressing deeper into a more Roman
environment). Consequently, demarcation disputes with Judaism are
perceived as endemic in this formative period as the processes of self-
definition for the Christian movement get under way, processes which
roused — and were to continue to rouse — much dissension and dispute
within the movement itself: the Pauline formula for Gentile converts,
involving as it did ‘ritual invisibility’, was manifestly not the only one
nor was it necessarily acceptable either to them or to other (and especially
Jewish) followers.

Some sort of control over our estimate of the social spread of
Christianity in the generation between the thirties and the sixties might
be sought in the onomastics of the Pauline connexion, from an
examination of the sixty-six named individuals in the genuinely Pauline

49 For a useful study, Theissen 1982 (F 229) 69ff. 59 See Hock 1980 (F 156).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ORIGINS AND SPREAD 865

documents (plus thirteen more for the Pauline following provided by
Acts) or of the full register of some ninety-seven names if we include in
the tally the pastorals as well (treating bynames as separate entries).
Caveats are obviously demanded not only in the field of onomastics itself
(which name is exclusively, characteristically, sometimes, never Jewish?)
but also in using the Pauline mission as a typical sample (which one can
well imagine it may not have been). It is, however, the best sample we
have.

What emerges, on analysis, is a mixed population, with a noticeably
high proportion of Latin names (in a ratio 1:2 for Latin: Greek names),
with no more than a dozen manifestly Semitic names altogether.5! The
Latin proportion may be accounted for, in part, by the adoption of
Roman names (especially praenomina and nomina) in the Greek East, but
the statistics still suggest an unusual proportion of travellers or immi-
grants whose traditional roots may not have been so deeply implanted in
their local society of the eastern Mediterranean where Paul’s mission had
been concentrated — the more mobile may conceivably have been the
more amenable to new ideas and to change. Actual mobility — or at least
ability to travel — is a marked feature of many of the named figures in the
Pauline corpus (nearly 50 per cent and rising to two-thirds if we assume
that those greeted by name in Rom. 16 have encountered Paul person-
ally). This may be partly a factor of secular occupation, partly of material
support available to them (their own, or from the contributions of their
brethren). This, too, may betoken a less fixed and traditional frame of
mind on the part of the new adherents. At the least these members are not
destitutes. And whilst fewer than 20 per cent of the named individuals in
the Pauline connexion are women it is clear that they can play a
prominent — though still circumscribed — role in prayer, prophecy, the
ministry of teaching and of service and social support (note especially
1 Cor. 11:2ff, Phil. 4:2f, Rom. 16)— more so than is apparent to us in later
generations (the pastorals e.g. 1 Tim. 2:8ff, already bearing testimony to
a more traditional backlash).52 On the evidence we have, they would
appear to have had access, in this first generation, to more influential
status than was available to them in contemporary Judaism. But
whatever may have been the personal and social factors which allowed
minds to be receptive to the new message, it needs to be firmly recalled
that the message they did receive was essentially theological: it was, in
the Pauline version, an eschatological message of redemption and the
parousia (the imminent Second Coming heralding final salvation), a
message expressed as a kerygma (proclamation) of the crucified Jesus,

51 Meeks 1983 (F 183) 47ff (Corinth), 5 sff (other names in the Pauline churches) provides a useful
survey. 52 For careful analyses, Witherington 1988 (F 82).
533 See Brooren 1982 (E 1098).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

866 17. CHRISTIANITY

raised from the dead, construed as the new Passover sacrifice (1 Cor.
5:7), the new Covenant sacrifice (1 Cor. 11:25), a sacrificial expiation for
the new Israel consisting alike of Gentile (ritually freed of the Old Law)
and of Jew (whether Law-observant or not): the Law of Christianity is
proclaimed as a world religion. It was a message that manifested itself
with superior spiritual powers, access to which was, importantly, open
to all, not to a restricted elite: salvation was available universally. Above
all we have that remarkable feature of Paul and his followers, viz. the
vigour of their missionary zeal to bring both Jew and Gentile within the
boundaries of the ‘Israel of God’, the ecclesia, the assembly of God where
the cohesive factor would (ideally) be a combination of correct belief and
right conduct, a combination unparalleled in the contemporary Gentile
religious world.

II. CHRISTIANS AND THE LAW

1. Christ

The trial and condemnation of Christ ‘as a criminal’ (as pointedly
observed by Tacitus, Amn. xv.4q: ‘Christus ... supplicio adfectus erat’)
certainly helped to cast a lengthy shadow of criminality over those who
professed to be servants of his Name.*4 But the precise grounds for his
sentence by the Roman procurator of Judaea have been, of course,
endlessly disputed. The most plausible reconstruction — but reconstruc-
tion it is — is that whilst to the pious Jewish mind, and to the Sanhedrin,
the essential crime may well have been blasphemy, to the Roman legal
mind and to the governot’s consilium it was as likely as not a charge of
sedition, combined with the open threat of Jewish retaliation if Pilate
refused to comply, that induced the condemnation. At all events it was
Pilate who condemned whilst Jews accused — or that is what the sources,
in retrospect, insist (e.g. Acts 3:13, 5:28ff, 13:28): such a combination of
politics and theology was to dog the early followers in their relations
with the society about them and with the Roman authorities.55

2. Sources

Sources are troublesome (here, as everywhere else). Acts is our major
source for the early political relations between the Christian followers
and the societies in which they lived. But Acts has amongst its

4 The neologism Christianus being a derogatory epithet devised by their opponents, Acts 11:26
(Antioch) — still in vogue as a taunt there in the late second century, Theophilus, ad Awfol. 1.12.

55 Emblematically encapsulated in the words of Agabus in prophecy: ‘Thus will the Jews in
Jerusalem bind the man whose belt this is and hand him over to the Gentiles’ (Acts 21:11).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHRISTIANS AND THE LAW 867

underpinning themes the law-abiding nature of the Christian victims:
the municipal and provincial administration, on the one hand, and, on
the other, the Christian movement (growing as it is and spreading
among the Gentiles, themselves of increasing dignity and status) need
not live together in other than harmony, but (the document pointedly
and persistently argues) it is the Jews (the ‘unconverted Jews’) who by,
their hostility have consistently stirred up trouble with the authorities
for Christians*® and have thereby forfeited their ancient claims to be the
chosen race. Paul’s personal spiritual history in Acts is patterned to
reflect this progression, shifting from Jewish hostility to Christian
conversion, and then, increasingly, dedicated toa mission away from the
synagogues towards the Gentile world, leading, ultimately, as far as
Rome. Paul’s own retrospective views of his past life (both as persecutor
and as persecuted) are notoriously unspecific and shifting in emphasis
(Gal. 1:13f, 1:23; 1 Cor. 15:8f; 2 Cor. 11:23ff; Phil. 3:6): nevertheless, .it
remains clear that the initial followers of Jesus (whether from Paul
himself or the author of Acts) in their perception of things were
‘persecuted’ — and in most cases persecuted by Jews, at times via urban or
Roman authorities. It is an attitude encapsulated in the words given to
Paul at Miletus to the Ephesian elders: ‘In city after city the Holy Spirit
assures me that imprisonment and hardships await me’ (Acts 20:23); and,
significantly, as the climax to the Beatitudes in the Matthaean version
(s:10ff) figures the blessedness of those who suffer insults and persecu-
tion for Christ’s sake. It is quite another matter to determine how
exaggerated or indeed accurate a construing of events all this may be. But
it is the mentality of this society which is crucial for its future:
persecutions needs must come just as they had beset the prophets of old.
The Christian prototype was on its way to be set not as the conforming

% Thus, in order, in the first dozen chapters (as a sample):

(1) ‘the Chief Priests, the Controller of the Temple and the Sadducees’ along with ‘the Jewish
rulers, elders and doctors of the law’ (Peter and John, in Jerusalem, Acts 4:1-5)
(2) ‘the High Priest and all his supporters, the Sadducean party’ (‘the Apostles’, in Jerusalem,
Acts 5:17)
(3) ‘members of the Synagogue called the Synagogue of Freedmen’ stirring up ‘the [Jewish]
people, the elders and the doctors of the law’ (Stephen, in Jerusalem, Acts 6:9ff)
(4) (The pre-conversion) Saul, in Jerusalem, Acts 8:1ff (men and women)
(5) Saul, from the High Priest in Jerusalem to Damascus (via the synagogues of Damascus),
Acts 9:1f (men and women)
(6) ‘The Jews’ (the converted Saul, in Damascus, Acts 9:23)
(7) Herod (pleasing the Jews) (James, the hrother of John, and Peter, in Jerusalem, Acts
12:1
In all the many instances of ‘persecution’ in the later chapters of Acts Jews fail to be implicated
only in 16:z0ff (Paul and Silas in Macedonian Philippi), in 17:1 8ff (Paul in Athens — but is this actually
‘persecution’?) and in 19:2 3ff (Paul’s companions Gaius and Aristarchus in Ephesus) — that is, in a
Roman colony and in two of the great pagan cities of the eastern Mediterranean (with characteristic
displays of pagan and self-interested prejudices).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

868 17. CHRISTIANITY

householder but as the singular and suffering martyr, 2 Cor. 11:23ff,
providing the /ocus classicus of the series of personal sufferings that might
lie in store. By the time of the composition of the Apocalypse the attitude
was firmly established (17:6: ‘And I saw that the Woman [= Rome] was
drunk with the blood of the Saints and with the blood of those who had
borne witness to Jesus’).

Accordingly, the death of Stephen, as Christian protomartyr, is
highlighted in Acts 6 as the quintessential experience awaiting these
Christian followers: the prophetic and inspirited individual is depicted as
the innocent victim of uncontrolled Jewish mob lynching, 6:5 4ff
(though it is possible that legal condemnation by the Sanhedrin for
violating the Temple precincts had been formally executed).5” It is a
scene which the unconverted Saul is tellingly made to approve (Acts 8:1,
cf. 26:9ff — is Gal. 1:17 irreconcilable?). Whereas the encounters of (the
later converted) Paul with Roman provincial authorities are contrived to
represent him as unfairly accused by conniving enemies of Christianity,
and accused of offences which are rightly judged by the Roman legal
representatives as not punishable under the law — thus before Gallio, the
proconsul of Achaea in 51/2 (Acts 18:12ff, cf. before Sergius Paulus, the
proconsul of Cyprus, Acts 13:6ff) and before Felix and Festus, procura-
tors of Judaea (Acts 24-6). Note the verdicts allegedly given after the —
manifestly informal — hearing at Caesarea before Festus and Agrippa and
his court: “This man is doing nothing that deserves death or imprison-
ment’; ‘This fellow could have been released had he not appealed to
Caesar’ (Acts 26:31f).

However apologetic and partial these accounts may be, two points
still emerge clearly — individual Christians, for whatever circumstances,
did keep falling foul of the law but no Roman law, nevertheless,
specifically outlawed Christianity as such. The dealings of the Roman
emperors themselves with Christians confirm this judgement.

3. Claudius

No certitude is possible that the incident recorded by Suetonius (Claud.
25.4) concerned Christians at all. All we know is that Claudius ‘expelled
from Rome Jews who were causing continual disturbances at the
instigation of Chrestus’ (‘Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuan-
tis’). We can merely speculate whether this may register a garbled
tradition of rioting within the Jewish community in Rome, between
enthusiast converts to the recently arrived Christian secta and other Jews

57 See, for example, Sherwin-White 1963 (D 109) 4off.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHRISTIANS AND THE LAW 869

of more traditional persuasions.** But the speculation must remain idle:
we are otherwise ignorant of what occasioned the rioting and whether it
was indeed basically domestic in character. And Claudius’ reaction to
Jewish turbulence in Rome follows imperial precedence (e.g. under
Tiberius, Tac. Ann. 11.85, Suet. Tid. 36) and it is not inconsistent with his
treatment of Jews elsewhere (e.g in Alexandria, P. Lond. 1912 coll.
ivf.= GCN 370.73ff). Acts 18:2 blandly records that Aquila, a Pontic
Jew, had arrived at Corinth from Italy ‘because Claudius had issued an
edict that all Jews should leave Rome’: presumably Christians would
have been affected insofar as they were also Jews. Certainly this incident
is recorded as no general ideological pogrom: no more than a peace and
order measure, and a local and temporary one that, it is implied, was
involved.

4. Nero

Tacitus, an experienced and senior senator (consul A.D. 97), had been
proconsular governor of the province of Asia early on in the second
decade of the second century: there Christians were doubtless becoming
a perceptible fact of life if not yet greatly numerous. He is our original
source (Amn. xv.44) to connect the fire of Rome under Nero (July a.v.
64) with Christians. There is every reason to weigh seriously his account
written under early Hadrian (though it would be prudent to take
authorial attitudes in his account as reflecting more certainly those that
prevailed in his class half a century after the events he is describing). He
makes the connexion between fire and Christians in a narrative context in
which dominant motifs are the destruction (much exaggerated, in fact)
of the Rome of old and the present realities under Nero of a modern
Rome of degraded immorality and irresponsibility in government
(instanced by inter alia gratuitous cruelty and imperial spectacles).

As the Tacitean narrative runs, expiatory rites hallowed by traditional
religion had failed to scotch the prevailing rumour of Nero’s personal
responsibility for starting the disastrous fire. So Nero provided Chris-
tians as scapegoats (‘subdidit reos’: the wording implies they were not, in
Tacitus’ view, in fact responsible for the fire); they were followers of a
new-fangled superstition ‘hated for their crimes’ (typical, therefore, of
the modern influx of depravity into the capital). Those who confessed

58 Oros. vi1.6.15f in fact reads Christo. He dates the incident to the ninth year of Claudius’ reign
(A.D. 49) but on that can be placed no firm reliance. Dio Lx.6.6 (under a.p. 41, but in a generalizing
context) possibly registers earlier measures taken by Claudius in an attempt to contain the Jewish
turbulence in Rome, for ‘he did not drive them out of the city but ordered them, whilst continuing
their ancestral way of life, not to assemble’.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

870 17. CHRISTIANITY

were arrested — the tense in Tacitus’ wording (‘qui fatebantur’) implies
they were confessing to being Christians — and they in turn revealed the
names of others: a huge multitude was thus convicted ‘not so much on
the charge of arson as for their hatred of humankind’. Nothing is
revealed by Tacitus of the actual processes of their legal conviction (did
Nero delegate authority and if so, to whom?) but he does disclose a belief
that whilst the charge of arson was false they undoubtedly deserved
punishment anyway. In his view Christians are tainted with crime. But
he manages nevertheless to create a haunting memory of their deaths,
contrived (as he puts it) ‘not for the public good but to glut one man’s
cruelty’, a holocaust lit to indulge Nero’s histrionic obsessions: ‘Mock-
ery of various kinds was added to their deaths: covered with the skins of
wild beasts they were torn to pieces by dogs, they were nailed to crosses
or were doomed to the flames: when daylight failed their burning served
to illuminate the night. Nero had made available his gardens for the
spectacle and provided a Circus show, dressed as a charioteer mingling
with the crowd or driving on a chariot.’ There is no good reason to
disbelieve this account but there is room to suspect that Tacitus may
have enhanced the numbers (mx/titudo ingens) in order to highlight Nero’s
monstrosities. Suetonius (Ner. 16.2) merely records the capital punish-
ment (‘afflicti suppliciis’) of Christians amongst a heterogeneous cata-
logue of Nero’s praiseworthy deeds. But the evidence does not warrant
any credence in a persecution more widespread than Rome: there are no
compelling grounds for positing any general enactment against Chris-
tians.5? Neither are the arguments strong for accepting the speculation
that it was through the influence of the imperial consort Poppaea that
potential hostility against Jews was deflected onto their Christian
rivals.6° But the clear identification by people and Roman authorities
alike of the separate existence of Christians is significant. Nero thus
emerges in the Christian tradition as the very first of the imperial
Persecutors (e.g. Tert. Apol. 5.3, cf. Melito ap. Eus. Hist. Ecel. 1v.26.9).

J. Peter and Paul

There appears to be nothing except historical convenience to connect the
deaths of Peter and Paul with these events of A.D. 64. Our last secure

59 See the analysis of Barnes 1968 (F 85) and for examples of the connexion in the popular mind
between dissident minority groups and the threat of urban incendiarism, Livy xxx1x.14.10
(Bacchanalians in Rome), Sall. Cat. 43.2 (Catilinarians in Rome), Joseph. BJ xivii—Lx1 (Jews in
Antioch).

© For the case see, for example, Frend 1965 (F 139) 164f: Poppaea undoubtedly shared in the
fashionable fascination with Jewish rituals and customs (e.g. Joseph. BJ vit.45 (Greeks in Antioch)
Ap. 1.282f (Greeks and Barbarians everywhere)) but Josephus’ enrolment of her among the
theosebeis (worshippers of God) AJ xx.195, cf. Vit. xvi ought to be taken as non-technical and as
honorific flattery (for the evidence and general discussion, Schiirer 1986 (E 1207) 111.1 78, 165).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONCLUSION 871

glimpse of Paul is that provided by the conclusion of Acts (28:16, 30)
where he is depicted (in about A.D. 62) as being under house detention in
Rome awaiting trial. The chances are high (but by no means absolute),
given the delays of two full years already, that the trial was in the end
aborted and that Paul secured some casual release.*! Certainly the tone of
the narrative in Acts and its whole tendency suggests (or at the very least
is contrived to suggest) that at the time of writing the death of Paul at the
hands of Roman authorities has not yet taken place — though admittedly
Paul is made to foretell the permanence of his departure from Miletus
and Ephesus (Acts 20:25, 38, at Miletus) along with forebodings of death
(Acts 21:10-14, at Caesarea). And as for Peter, notoriously his Roman
whereabouts are even more difficult to establish with any security.6? On
the other hand there can be no doubt about the reality of the cu/tus of
Peter and Paul as martyrs located on the Vatican hill and by the Ostian
Way, by no later than the course of the second century,® and of the
tradition of their deaths as martyrs by the very end of the first. But for
all we know the incidents which encompassed their deaths in Rome may
well have been quite separate from the Neronian fire.

It would not be too long after these incidents that (inspired) Christians
— if we are to believe a persistent story (and we need not) — took refuge
from Jerusalem immediately before its siege and eventual destruction
and fled to the safety of (Jordanian) Pella of the Decapolis. On this
version of events providential protection did save Palestinian Christians
from becoming victims in the devastation that was to befall Palestinian
Jewry.©

III. CONCLUSION

Actual deaths may have been relatively few before a.p. 70.67 But their
heroic circumstances ensured that the lives of these charismatic indivi-

$1 For valuable discussion, Sherwin-White 1963 (D 109) 118f.

62 On these, both the Pauline corpus and Acts are famously silent. 1 Pet. purports to be written
from ‘Babylon’ (5:13: presumably = Rome, cf. Eus. Hist. Eccl. 1.15.2), thereby witnessing a (?very
late) first-century tradition of a Roman residence. For a convenient collection of the evidence,
O’Connor 1969 (F 196).

§3 See Eus. Hist. Eccl. 11.25.6ff (Gaius): discussion Toynbee and Ward Perkins 1956 (E 134) 128ff.

“ For example 1 Clement 5.4f (late in the first century; Peter and Paul), cf. John 21:18f (Peter).
Neither mentions the place of death.

65 For what it is worth Eus. Chron. GCS (= Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten
Jabrbunderte) 20.216 and Jerome GCS 47.185 record the deaths four years after the fire.

% The story (which suspiciously ensures an apostolic pedigree for the church of Pella) has
disturbingly irreconcilable variants: Eus. Hist. Eccl. 11.5.3 (implausibly making the migration not
only of the full Jerusalem church but of all the ‘holy men’ in the land of Judaea besides), Epiph. Ady.
Haeres. 29.7, 30.2, Mens. 15. 2ff.

$7 Despite impressions Stephen and James, the brother of John, are the only two to die in Acts
(7:60, 12:1) along with the unsubstantiated Jerusalem victims whom Saul ‘persecuted to the death’
(if we are to place literal credence in the speech given him in Acts 22:4).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

872 17. CHRISTIANITY

duals were to become the enduring models of behaviour and the focus of
theological attention: characteristically these were outspoken missionar-
ies, the zealous apostles, the staunch disciples and their descendants,
often, as society and tradition expected of them, rootless men and
professed celibates, or men who had sacrificed country and kin to their
religious cause — and perceived, besides, as being direct descendants of
one persistent lineage in Jewish tradition enshrined in the Book of
Maccabees. Before their glittering examples the solid and dutiful
householders of the secondary epistles ascribed to Paul, living out stable
and orderly lives of domesticated Christianity, with loving wives,
obedient progeny and submissive slaves, failed to capture the theological
and spiritual imagination. Despite opponents, and despite the passage of
the years, the spirit of the Pauline theology of imminent parousia— and his
own potent example — was to maintain its hold on the high ground into
the succeeding centuries. And it may well be that after the initial
missionary successes (at least as highlighted for our benefit in Acts) the
consolidation and spread of the Christian communities proceeded at a
less spectacular pace in the following generations.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 18

SOCIAL STATUS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION!

SUSAN TREGGIARI

The epoch of the destruction of the last great hellenistic monarchy which
could challenge Rome in the Mediterranean world and of the addition of
a princeps to the Roman constitutional system clarified the superiority of
all Roman citizens to all others with whom they lived. Although political
liberty was henceforth circumscribed, the privilege of citizens in private
law and social status was apparent. Roman law applied only to citizens,
but the spread of citizenship, the pervasive presence of a Roman
administrative model and the symbiosis of Romans with non-Romans
encouraged the imitation of Roman law and social institutions.2 Nor was
Rome immune to influences from outside: the migration of scholars after
the conquest of Alexandria, the convenient Jewish idea of the sabbath,
innovations in religion or cuisine. Roman social patterns and life must be
seen against the mosaic of the empire.

I. LEGAL DISTINCTIONS

Gaius, writing his textbook on Roman law in the second century a.p.,
launches into the law of persons with a pithy classification of the human
race, as far as it was relevant to Roman law: ‘the primary distinction in
the law of persons is this, that all men are either free or slaves. Next, free
men are either ingenui (freeborn) or /ibertini (freedmen). Ingenui are those
born free, /ibertini those manumitted from lawful slavery. Next, of
freedmen there are three classes: they are either Roman citizens or Latins
or in the category of dediticii.’” (Inst. 1.3.9-12, de Zulueta’s translation.)
To the mind of a Roman lawyer, legal status is the essential
distinction. Although his first two sentences could be taken to refer to
the whole human race, the third makes it clear that he is thinking
of the community of Roman citizens and of slaves and dediticii within
that context, those subject to Roman law (‘the ... law observed by us’,

1 Lam indebted to David Cherry, Colin Wells, members of Stanford seminars, and the editors for
discussion and comments, and to James Rives for efficient verification of references.

2 A Spanish inscription of 87 8.c. provides a striking early instance. See Richardson 1983 (B 271);
Birks, Rodger and Richardson 1984 (D 247).

873

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

874 18. SOCIAL STATUS

ibid. 8). His categories are not exhaustive for the whole of humanity.
Division of humanity into slaves (born or made) and free implies that the
free are subdivided into freeborn non-Roman and freeborn Roman
(citizen-born or enfranchised aliens) on the one hand, and freed slaves on
the other. Slaves freed by non-Romans become non-Roman free people;
those freed by Romans fall into three classes. All the resulting classes
need also to be subdivided by two other important variables, sex and age.
Roman women are termed citizens, cives Romanae. They had no right to
vote or stand for office, but in private law their rights were comparable
to those of male citizens (with certain restrictions) and they could pass on
citizenship to children or freed slaves. Boys attained the full public rights
of citizens when judged mature for the Forum and military service (at
about seventeen); they attained majority in private law at puberty or
fourteen, a status which girls reached at twelve.3

Our focus, like that of our Roman sources, will be on that small
proportion of inhabitants of the empire who, in 28 B.c., were free and
Roman citizens, at most 5—6 million men, women and children, of whom
not many more than 4 million lived in Italy.4 But the masses of non-
citizens of many disparate cities and tribes, who heavily outnumbered
Roman citizens in the provinces, and the slaves, who made up a
substantial proportion of the population in Rome and other cities and on
the estates and cattle pastures of Italy, must not be forgotten. They
sharpened Romans’ perception of their own position of privilege. There
is continuity between the humbly born traders who, as Cicero said (11
Verr. 5.167), ought to have been able to trust to their citizen status to
protect them in any province, among non-citizens as well as before
Roman officials, even where they had no acquaintances to vouch for
them, and the prosperous and scholarly Paul of Tarsus, who, when his
zeal as a preacher came to the attention of the authorities, was able to
claim citizen rights and convince officialdom that his own evidence on
his status could be trusted.

Though the citizen’s rights appear most strikingly when he is accused
of a crime, they were usually important to his life because they dictated
his capacity to act in private law. Roman civil law superimposed further
regulations on the conventions generally accepted by mankind, the ius
gentium. Free persons who were not Roman citizens had a legal
personality through the laws of their own community, which were
recognized by Rome. But slaves were chattels and had none. Slaves of
Romans nevertheless had a role in Roman law, since they could function
as extensions of their owners’ personalities.5 But any Roman who was on
the point of making a contract or marriage ought to have taken the

3 Buckland 1963 (F 646) 142f; Gardner 1986 (F 33) 14.
4 Brunt 1971 (A 9) 12. 5 Watson 1987 (F 703) ch. 6.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOCIAL DISTINCTIONS 875

precaution of checking whether the other party was a slave or a non-
citizen (peregrinus| peregrina). A man who unwittingly married a non-
citizen or slave woman might find that he had begotten non-citizen (and
in Roman law illegitimate) or slave children; anyone who left property to
a slave enriched his or her owner; bequests to a non-citizen were void.
Theoretically, the distinction between slave and free was sharp: a human
being was either one or the other. In practice, status was fluid. A person
might experience several changes of status ina lifetime. A Roman citizen
might (through being captured in war for example) fall into slavery. A
slave might be freed by a Roman and become a full citizen. Doubt and
obscurity might exist. There were people wrongfully treated as slaves,
foundlings for instance, whose free birth might be proved and whose
status restored; persons thought to be slaves by current ‘owners’ acting
in good faith (bona fide servientes); slaves who had been manumitted under
a will, in the interval between the testator’s death and the implemen-
tation of the provisions of a will (statuliberi); slaves informally manumit-
ted, who did not become citizens or, in strict law, free people.

II. SOCIAL DISTINCTIONS

1. Ordines

Gradations of prestige, gradus dignitatis, might seem necessary for an
equitable state (Cic. Rep. 1.43). Prestige was partly determined by
constitutional function. Rome contained various orders or ranks,
ordines.© Upper-class writers defined their society in constitutional terms
as made up of Senate and People (plebs is used of the ‘commons’, e.g. D1.
16.238 pr.) or, in more evocative language, of patres and QOuirites (e.g.
Hor. Carm. 1v.14.1). These categories exclude or overlook the political
nonentities, citizen women and children. For the late Republic, the
membership of the senatorial order was defined by the current list of
senators, men elected to the quaestorship and not subsequently demoted
by censors or exiled by courts or a dictator or proscribed by triumvirs.
(Close relatives of senators might be regarded as sharing their interests,
but were not members of the order at this date.) Another stratum had
gradually become defined. According to the Elder Pliny, an order
had been inserted between the commons (plebs) and the senators
(patres), when it became customary for wealthy men to wear a gold ring.
The ring distinguished this ‘second order’ from the plebs, as the lati-
clave distinguished senators (who also wore gold rings) from them

6 Cohen 1975 (F 18). For discussion of social structures over a longer period see Garnsey and

Saller 1987 (a 34) ch. 6; Alféldy 1985 (F 1) ch. 5. MacMullen 1974 (F 44) ch. 4 gives a broader
perspective on the economic basis of class. See also de Ste Croix 1981 (ago) 350ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

876 18. SOCIAL STATUS

(HN XXxXIII.29). Pliny’s account is significant because it represents the
views of an erudite administrator on the class to which he belonged. But
it is imprecise in its chronology. The second order was in Pliny’s day
called equites, a title earlier enjoyed by the equites equo publico (cavalry) and
gradually extended to jurors, although as late as the time of Augustus
some jurors remained in the lower stratum of wearers of the iron ring
rather than the gold one. It was now money, not the privilege of the
public horse, which marked eguites. What interests Pliny and has puzzled
modern scholars is the fuzziness of the definition of the second class. But
this is natural, since the class had evolved gradually over a couple of
centuries. The growth of wealth and of the citizen body (as Pliny, a
native of Comum in Transpadane Italy, recognized) meant that more
men were qualified for various forms of public service and interested in
achieving some public recognition without wanting a senatorial career.
C. Gracchus in 123 B.c. first recruited them for honorific, influential and
burdensome jury-service.” The class from which he drew was probably
defined by the possession of capital of at least HS 400,000. By the Gos B.c.
the title of eguites was standard for non-senatorial jurors. Men whose
property qualified them for jury service but who were not on the lists
naturally claimed the title or were given it informally by their friends.
But, because it was public function which defined an ordo, they could not
strictly be regarded as members of the nascent equestrian order.
Augustus, by holding the census efficiently and by expanding the
number of administrative posts available, was to define the second order
more formally and greatly increase its prestige. Five thousand equites
Romani might in his time attend the parade which celebrated their official
position (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. v1.13.4); there were 3,000 jurors.
Tiberius was to unite jurors and holders of the public horse in one order,
enjoying the title of equites and the gold ring.8

Equites in the broad sense might also remain entirely private gentle-
men, managing their estates (the major form of investment for most of
them) or sharing in financial ventures, especially banking and the larger
scale forms of trade. Some local magnates qualified for equestrian rank.
Strabo (111.5.3-5 (169C), v.1.6-7 (213C)) says Gades and Padua in the
time of Augustus had 500 equites each. Whereas the Senate when swollen
in the time of Caesar had had 900 members, the size of the equestrian
order was very much greater. If Padua and Gades could show 1,000
whom their contemporaries regarded as equestrian, the order in its
extended sense must have numbered in the tens of thousands by 44 B.c.

In the towns, the decurions formed an order just as the Senate did at
Rome: local town councils included men who might also enjoy the status

7 Sherwin-White 1982 (a 88), especially 28.
8 Pliny, HN xxxu1.32. Cf. Wiseman 1970 (p 80) 76. See also Brunt 1988 (D 28).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOCIAL DISTINCTIONS 877

of Roman eques (e.g. Cic. Fam. x11t.11). The decurionate was a channel to
the equestrian and senatorial orders.9 Members of disreputable pro-
fessions were barred, as from the equestrian order; freedmen, allowed by
Caesar, were later excluded; the qualification of a minimum capital may
have varied according to local circumstances.!° Certain other groups
whose status was legally defined or who performed public functions
might also be termed ordines. Ex-slaves, /ibertini, were defined by their
origin; the ordo scribarum, the most eminent of public servants, some of
whom were also equites, were marked out because, like senators, they
were registered.!!

Other men who served the state were registered and distinguishable.
Civil servants, apparitores, such as lictors and heralds, like the scribes
bridged the gap between the upper classes and the freed slave.!?
Freeborn citizens in search of upward mobility were likely to join the
army rather than the civil service. A private soldier might rise to the
centurionate; a senior centurion was likely on retirement to become a
prominent citizen in an Italian town. Augustus structured conditions of
service and career-patterns: service became a road to upward mobility or
to maintenance of a family’s position. The successful make a transition to
the decurionate or to equestrian administrative posts.!3 The gradual rise
of families depended on a series of individual successes. Thus the
historian Velleius Paterculus (praetor with his brother Magius Celer
Velleianus in A.D. 15) was descended on his mother’s side from a
Campanian great-grandfather, Minatus Magius, who received Roman
citizenship and his sons the praetorship after service in the Social War,
and from a paternal grandfather who was an officer under Pompey and
later M. Brutus and Ti. Nero, and killed himself in 41 B.c. The father was
also an equestrian military man and Velleius himself reached the Senate
via army service under the future emperor Tiberius, son of his grand-
father’s distinguished friend (Vell. Pat. 1.16.2, 76.1). More dramatic
stories of rags to riches in three generations or less circulated about new
men, concerned to tie the senator as closely as possible to discreditable
antecedents. Thus Cicero’s grandfather was a fuller, Octavian was
connected by Antony and others with grandfathers and great-grand-
fathers in low trade; P. Vitellius, egues and procurator of Augustus and
father of four senators and grandfather of the emperor, was said to be son
of an unsavoury speculator and a common prostitute and grandson of a
freed cobbler and of a baker (Plut. Cie. 1, Suet. Aug. 2, 4, Vit. 2).

9 Demougin 1983 (E 34); Wiseman 1971 (D 81) 86ff; on qualifications, Crook 1967 (F 21) 65ff.

10 See Wiseman 1971 (D 81) 89-94; Garnsey 1970 (F 35) 242-5.

"| Cicero regarded the tax-contractors as an ordo: Plane. 23; Fam. xttt.9.2. See Badian 1972 (D 84)
74- '2 Purcell 1983 (F 49).

') Dobson 1970 (D 181) and 1974 (D 182); Breeze 1975 (D 167). On recruitment of the poor as
common soldiers, Campbell 1984 (D 173) 8ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

878 18. SOCIAL STATUS

2. Wealth

But Roman class structure cannot be described solely by ordines.
Economic distinctions modify the pattern imposed by constitutional
function or legal status.14 The most striking fact about society is the gap
between rich and poor. At the top, senators and equites had, until the time
of Augustus, the same census qualification of HS 400,000 (Dio Lrv.17.3).
But this is a minimum. Although misfortune could mean that a senator
failed to maintain his qualification, many possessed capital far above that
level. No totals are recorded for the Republic, but senators and equites
could build vast fortunes through running and increasing estates and
through financial investment and speculation (especially in the tax
companies). The great generals and their friends dramatically increased
their wealth through booty and the exploitation of financial opportuni-
ties in the provinces. Late republican data show the pattern for the
beginning of our period. Pompey began with at least large estates in
Picenum; by 51 the amount of interest actually paid (not as much as
what was owed) to him by one foreign king was HS 792,000 per month
(Cic. Att. v1.1.3). The disposable capital of Pompey in the fifties or
Caesar in the forties was immense by the standards of ordinary senators.
They could carry out public building schemes, and give games which put
the munificence of lesser politicians in the shade. The enrichment and
expenditure of the triumvirs and emperors followed the same pattern.
But, though not comparable with the fortunes of such leaders, the
property of the wealthier senators, enriched by civil war and conquest
abroad, was huge. For Crassus a bon mot, for Domitius Ahenobarbus
armies of tenants, for Lucullus luxurious dinners and gardens survive to
attest wealth.!5 Cicero (with no public munificence on his record)
collected villas and found some display necessary to the maintenance of
his position (his critics thought a new man could have done with less):
HS 3,500,000 (partly borrowed) bought his town house; HS 20 million
came to him in inheritances, together with other honest, but short-lived,
perquisites of an administrative career.

Setting himself up, in a sermon on true riches, as a senator of Stoic
continence whose fortune would generally be considered modest, but
who could adjust his expenditure to allow some surplus, Cicero
mentions HS 100,000 as an income which would more than cover
expenses, where an extravagant man would find 600,000 inadequate.’6
But he regarded 80,000 as an adequate allowance for young Marcus

“4 Wiseman 1971 (D 81) 65ff, 116ff. Cf. Harris 1988 (F 40).

1S Crassus: Whitehead 1986 (F 80); Ahenobarbus: Brunt 1975 (F 13) 619ff, 634f; Lucullus:
Shatzman 1975 (p 64) 378-81. For republican senatorial fortunes in general see Shatzman 1973 (D 64).

16 Parad. 47, cf. Wiseman 1970 (D 80) 77.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOCIAL DISTINCTIONS 879

when he was only a student in Athens — and in the first year travelling
expenses brought the figure up to 100,000 (Aff. xv.17.1, XVI.1.5 with
Shackleton Bailey ad /oc.). So 100,000 must not be taken seriously as
representing Cicero’s own budget. Some equites were as rich as wealthy
senators; they could, if they wished, like Atticus, live with less display.
Inheriting HS 10 million and an antique house on the Quirinal to add to
his paternal (2 million) and other property, he lived with quiet good taste
and such economy that he is said to have paid out only 3,000 a month for
domestic expenses (Nep. Aft. 5.2, 13, 14.2, 21.1).

The good man of course avoided disgraceful sources of enrichment
(despoiling provinces, ejecting neighbours, going shares with unscrupu-
lous freedmen and so on, Cic. Parad. 43, 46 etc.). Ranching on public
land; the intensive exploitation of private land for cash crops or products
such as oil and wine, bricks, pottery, timber, quarrying; rent from urban
property such as housing or brothels; investment in transmarine
commerce and small shops; usury; booty and the perquisites of office:
these and other means of profit were usual and acceptable.'” The largest
attested senatorial fortune (from a rhetorical source) is that of Cn.
Cornelius Lentulus the augur, probably the consul of 14 B.c. Seneca and
Tacitus agree that he rose from poverty, but Tacitus claims that his
money was made honourably and Seneca that he owed it to the
generosity of Augustus. Seneca puts it at HS 400 million, a figure based
perhaps on multiplication of the equestrian minimum and affection for
40 and 4oo, rather than on verification of records. But it is highly
significant for upper-class perception, under Nero, of what a senator
might be worth.!8 Seneca himself is said to have had 300 million
sesterces,!9

Lentulus had allegedly earlier scarcely supported the position of a
nobilis. Other senators had difficulty maintaining the senatorial property
qualification. This by 13 B.c. was fixed at HS 1 million.2° Senators who
dropped below the property qualification might resign or appeal to the
emperor for a subvention: some are attested, especially if notable for
ancestry or extravagance.?!

Equites (who had to possess at least HS 400,000 and, usually, free
birth)? might exceed the senatorial minimum, as Atticus had done, and

‘7 For means of enrichment see Finley 1976 (a 27); D’Arms 1981 (F 22) ch. 3 and, for a later
period, Duncan-Jones 1982 (a 24) ch. 1 on Pliny.

18 Sen. Ben. 11.27.1f; Tac. Ann. tv.44.1; Suet. Tb. 49. Appropriately, the money reverted to the
emperor under his will (Suet. Tib. 49). Cf. PIR c 1379; Syme 1939 (a 93) 381, cf. goof.

9 Tac. Aan. xitt.42.4; Dio Lxr.10.3, cf. Vibius Crispus; Tac. Déa/. vii1; Brunt 1975 (F 13) 624
n.16. Duncan- Jones 1982 (a 24) App. 7 tabulates known fortunes under the Empire.

2% Dio trv.26.3~4, pace Suet. Aug. 41.1. Clear summary by Talbert 1984 (D 77) 47ff. See further
Nicolet 1976 (D 53), 1984 (c 180) goff.

21 Hopkins 1983 (a 46) 75f; Talbert 1984 (D 77) 47ff.

2 Hor. Epist. 1.1.57-9; Ars P. 383-4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

880 18. SOCIAL STATUS

might rival the wealthiest senators. Virgil is said to have acquired nearly
HS 10 million from friends (Vita Verg. 13). Maecenas must have far
outclassed him. Moralists were more likely to focus on wealthy freedmen
whose fortunes approached even that of Lentulus. The richest according
to tradition were found under Claudius, the imperial freedmen Narcissus
with over HS 400 million (Dio Lx1.34.4) and M. Antonius Pallas with HS
300 million (Tac. Ann. x11.53.5). But already soon after the civil wars
Caecilius Isidorus, despite losses, died possessed of 60 million in cash,
besides estates estimated to bring him up to the level of L. Ahenobarbus
(cos. 54 B.C.) and of the Claudian freedmen.% M. Aurelius Zosimus,
freedman and accensus of Cotta Maximus (Messallinus, cos. 20), received
several gifts equivalent to the equestrian census from his patron.24

Less than the equestrian census might make a family wealthy by the
standards of a small community. The capital required of some municipal
councillors is known to have been HS 100,000. Retired centurions or
freedmen traders or even efficient farmers might attain solid wealth.?5
But ordinary artisans, shopkeepers and peasants were immeasurably
removed from equestrian wealth. The pay of a private soldier, HS 900
annually, out of which he paid for food and equipment, was attractive
and must have represented security compared with what an able-bodied
man could have earned asa labourer, seasonally employed and with no
compensation for injury. Cicero had argued in the 7os B.c. that an
ordinary labourer would earn no more than HS 3 daily (QRasc. 28). Daily
rates must have varied according to skill, demand, area and season; we
cannot determine fluctuations over time.”° Nor are costs of even basic
essentials such as food and housing determinable over time or for any
given moment. The precise economic situation of the small proprietor
and the wage-earner eludes us. In the city of Rome and other urban
centres, the craftsmen, shopkeepers and freed slaves (who often pos-
sessed a skill) distinguish themselves from the lower part of the
population by their habit (which cost money) of commemorating
themselves on tomb inscriptions. Some slaves, who might possess slaves
of their own or other property, must also be counted among the
relatively well-off.

23 Pliny, HN xxxu.135; Brunt 1975 (F 13).

2 EJ2 358. Maximus’ father, Messalla Corvinus, had probably gained from the civil wars (Syme
1958 (B 176) 11 573). His mother was presumably the heiress of the Aurelii Cottae: Syme 1985 (4 95)
231-2.

25 Wiseman 1971 (D 81) 91ff; Dobson 1974 (D 182) 392ff; Treggiari 1969 (F 68) 102ff, tog.

2 On earnings, Wells 1984 (a 101) 203-5 for a succinct and judicious summary; Duncan- Jones
1982 (a 24) 54. For more general accounts of lower-class workers Garnsey 1980(F 37); Brunt 1980(D
117); de Ste Croix 1981 (4 90) 187ff; MacMullen 1974 (F 44) 42-5, ona later period, is suggestive. On
soldiers, Campbell 1984 (D 173) 177ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOCIAL DISTINCTIONS 881

3. Birth

“Though you strut in the pride of wealth, Fortune does not change your
birth’ (Hor. Epod. tv.5—6). Romans did not measure social position by
census rating. Patrician lineage, descent from ancient consuls, descent
from any man who had held the consulship or done great deeds, all these
had varying weight. Nobilitas came to descendants in the male line from
the first three. It might be difficult to discriminate between the scion ofa
patrician family which had achieved little in recent decades (e.g. Cic.
Maur. 16) and the representative of a plebeian noble house, particularly as
the female line might introduce other themes. Caesar could wring every
last drop of value from descent from Alban kings and kinship with the
new achiever, Marius. Octavian, a Iulius only by his maternal grand-
mother and by an arrangement which even his stepfather for a time
refrained from acknowledging (Cic. Aét. x1v.12.2), became more accep-
table to the nobles by his last marriage to an heiress of Claudii Nerones
and Livii Drusi. Descent from mythical heroes or ancient kings might
balance lack of recent and Roman public. service. Maecenas, who
remained an eques, drew real influence from his close friendship with
Octavian and social status from his alleged descent from Etruscan
princes (Hor. Carm. 1.1.1). Such genealogy could be alleged even in the
minutes of the Senate (Tac. Asn. x11.53.3).27

Absence of real or fictitious distinctions of birth was not an insuper-
able barrier to advancement. (If fictitious, they were normally invented
after a man had succeeded.) The Senate had necessarily always been
recruited from below, and although new men who rose to the consulship
were rare, men of equestrian family steadily reached lower magistracies
and their sons or grandsons might do better. New men, novi homines,
whose families showed no previous senator, stand at the opposite end of
the continuum from the nobilis. Between were various gradations.

As the equestrian order was the seedbed of the Senate (Livy,
xL11.61.5), closely linked to it by blood, intermarriage, friendship and
similar interests and education, so lower strata of the propertied classes
supplied recruits to the equestrian order. A man of modest means, sennis,
who knew how to make money, might end as a rich and influential
eques.29

These various stratifications, themselves untidy, from senators and
equites and local notables down through civil servants and centurions to

7 Cf. Balsdon 1979 (A 2) 19f; Wiseman 1974 (D 82).

% Wiseman 1971 (p 81); Brunt 1982 (F 14); Hopkins 1983 (a 46) 56ff; Syme 1986 (A 95).

29 Sen. Ep. 101.1f. For the topos on social mobility see Sen. Controv. 1.6.3f, with Winterbottom ad
boc.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

882 18. SOCIAL STATUS

freed slaves and the common people, were interconnected by networks
of patronage and friendship. The archaic patron-—client relationship,
sanctioned by the Twelve Tables, had evolved into a fluid situation in the
late Republic, when ancestral ties of dependence were probably less
relevant to a noble and a humble citizen than current economic ties (for
instance Domitius Ahenobarbus could still control his tenants) and
political advantage (popu/aris tribunes could attract voters and successful
generals rely on their troops). But poets and scholars who needed to
make their way as ‘friends’ of powerful men and the domi nobiles like the
Roscii of Ameria still cultivated patrons of higher status than them-
selves. A Cicero could be useful, as senator and governor, to rich Greeks
or Roman tax-contractors or businessmen, and they could be useful to
him. Mutual interest was strengthened by a code which recommended
reciprocity and strict repayment of beneficia. Between social equals the
role of benefactor and beneficiary might rotate. Benefits might also be
asked for third parties. Where there was inequality of status or influence,
a humble amicus might request help from his patron who would ask his
own patron to bring about the desired result.%°

The troubles of the late Republic and triumviral period ruined many
and promoted some. Territorial expansion and the civil wars of Caesar
and the Pompeians increased the need for commanders and administra-
tors; reliable and successful soldiers claimed rewards from the victor;
despite casualties, the number of senators was inflated under Caesar. The
wars which followed gave men of all classes further opportunities to rise.
For example, Caesar’s friendship secured the consulship of Cornelius
Balbus of Gades (40 B.c.). The freedman’s son Q. Horatius Flaccus
would probably not have held an equestrian command if Brutus had not
badly needed officers. Calvisius Sabinus (probably of Spoleto) was
promoted by Caesar and rewarded by Octavian for attempting to defend
the dictator against his assassins. He was consul in 39 and did Octavian
good service in the navy and as governor of Spain during the war of
Actium. A son and grandson follow him to the consulship. C. Carrinas
(cos. suff. 43) is comparable. Young men of hitherto obscure Italian
families came up with Octavian, for instance Salvidienus Rufus (who
should have been consul in 39). M. Vipsanius Agrippa, who dropped the
gentile name which revealed his un-Roman background, outshone them
all. The piping days of peace gave fewer opportunities to soldiers, but
reliability and efficiency might still win promotion through imperial
favour and the eloquent new man might still rise through forensic
oratory.?!

»% Brunt 1965 (F 11), 1988 (F 15); Wiseman 1971 (D 81) 35ff; Saller 1982 (F 59); Wallace-Hadrill

1989 (F 75).
3 Tac. Dial. vu1.3. Curtius Rufus (cos. suff. a.D. 43, legate of Upper Germany 47) was alleged to

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOCIAL PROBLEMS 8383

III. SOCIAL PROBLEMS AT THE BEGINNING
OF THE PRINCIPATE

The two themes of Romans who reflected on the twenty years after the
murder of Caesar were social disruption and moral decay. The agony of
the civil wars of the 80s and the shameful proscriptions of Sulla had been
burned into the memory of Cicero’s generation (Cic. Cat. 11.20). Cicero
himself perished in the second proscription, ordered by younger men.
His elder, M. Terentius Varro (116-27), survived, but his book On Peace
dates to the. aftermath of Caesar’s civil war, when his Pompeian
sympathies had been forgiven, not to the peace dominated by the last and
youngest of the triumvirs.32

C. Sallustius Crispus (?86-35), a new man from Sabine territory who
reached the praetorship under Caesar (46), between 44 and 35 produced a
series of works on the decline of the Republic, diagnosing its ills as
avarice, luxury and selfish ambition. Since 146 B.c., avaritia had driven
out good faith and replaced it with pride, cruelty, irreligion and venality.
Ambitio taught deceit and treachery to friends. Laxuria came in with
Sulla’s eastern wars: conspicuous and reckless consumption included
sexual and sensual indulgence of all kinds and a mania for building
private houses, where the Romans of old had built simple temples.
Sallust sounds notes which recur in Horace a decade later.33

Cornelius Nepos, from Cisalpina, friend of Cicero, Atticus and
Catullus (¢. 99 — ¢. 24 B.C.), made no sermons on civil war, but his
assessment of Atticus’ life defends the virtue of the able and rich eques
who chose to take no part in politics, to be the friend simultaneously of
Hortensius and Cicero, or of Brutus and Antony or Antony and
Octavian, and (more remarkably) to succour the losers.* Since the
second edition of this life appeared between Atticus’ death in 32 and 27
B.C., it took courage to point out what wisdom Atticus had displayed in
keeping the friendship of both Octavian and Antony when they were
rivals for supreme power (20.5). Nepos preferred Atticus, who never
lost a friend, to the warring princes who corresponded with him about
literature. It was not many years later that one of Brutus’ former officers,
re-reading Homer, praised the peacemakers and criticized ruthless
leaders. Achilles was ruled by passion, and both he and Agamemnon by

be the son of a gladiator. But Tiberius defended him by saying that ‘he seemed to be his own
father’ (Tac. Ann xt.21.3, cf. Cic. Phil. v1.17: Cicero ‘a se ortum’).

32 Varro’s fragmentary early Satires include Sexagesis, about a Rip Van Winkle who went to sleep
for fifty years and awoke ¢. 70 B.c. to find a great increase in greed, luxury and corruption (in
Bucheler, Petronii Saturae 315ff, frr. 485-505).

33 Sall. Cat, 10-13. The link between extravagance and civil war is explicitly made in Tacitus’
version of a letter of Tiberius on the subject of a proposed sumptuary law (Ann. 111.54.5).

* Nep. Ast. 2.2, cf. 1.4, 8.6, 9.4f, 11.2, 4. See Horsfall 1989 (B 88).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

884 18. SOCIAL STATUS

anger: the parallel with Antony and Octavian is clear. Virtue and
wisdom are personified by Ulysses, who tried to get his companions
safely home and who resisted the harlot who tried to enslave him.
Horace and his friends (he admits) follow bad leaders mindlessly,
suppressing their anxieties and postponing the moral effort which is
needed to save them.5

Sallust, Nepos and Horace were all conscious of the violent reversals
of fortune which their age had witnessed. The fates of Pompey, Caesar
and Antony were potent. Lesser men rose or fell. Octavian’s admiral L.
Tarius Rufus was said to have sprung from the lowest level of society
(Pliny, HN xvitt.37: ‘infima natalium humilitate’). Horace attacks an
alleged ex-slave who became a military tribune (Epod. tv). Varying
fortune raised men or ruined them, putting down the mighty and
advancing the obscure.** Men were perturbed by the ambition of leaders,
vices of generals, changes in the state, revolution, violent disaster, the
fall of the great and the rise of the humble.3”7 The Roman instinct was to
get back to a mythical status quo, to a time when citizens were brave,
hardworking, unselfish and harmonious.

Cicero had advised Caesar, when he controlled the state, to stabilize the
Republic and so avoid further dissension (Marce//. 29); in particular he
ought to set up courts, restore credit, repress self-indulgent vices,
propagate children, and by means of severe laws tie up everything
which had collapsed and run wild (ébid. 23). This vague and viticultural
recipe represents a return to old values and discipline, imposed from
outside. Caesar, as dictator like Sulla, could claim a mandate to rebuild
the state. Sulla had systematized courts and magistracies and passed
a sumptuary law (Gell. NA 11.24.11); Caesar too tidied up the system,
passed repressive measures, tackled the financial crisis and perhaps (Dio
XLIII.25.2) offered rewards to fathers of large families. Sumptuary laws
checked extravagance in meals, building and perhaps women’s
jewellery.38

The triumvirs, charged, like Sulla, with rebuilding, concerned them-
selves with the excision of their enemies from the body politic and other
urgent measures. Once the emergency was advertised as over in 28,39
Octavian had to take up the work of reconstruction. Before, Horace had
prayed for the cessation of civil war, now he turns to a Sallustian
diagnosis of problems to be solved. As Augustus, the ruler must aspire
to be a father of cities (Carm. 111.24). Founders were expected to
construct a society as well as a constitution. It was in these years that Livy

35 Hor. Epist. 1.2. especially 7-11, 12-16, 17-22, 25, 26-33. (Dated to 22 by Fraenkel 1957 (B 53)
316.) % Nep. A#t. 10.2; Hor. Carm. 1.34.12ff, 1.35.26. 37 Nep. Afs. 16.4.
38 Yavetz 1983 (c 252) 15 4f. »% Syme 1939 (A 93) 306f; Wells 1984 (A ror) 5 3ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOCIAL PROBLEMS 885

was describing the work of Romulus and Numa. The date at which
Dionysius of Halicarnassus worked on the same theme is obscure: it is
tempting to associate his remarks on Romulus with the debate on
whether it was worth attempting to legislate morality which took place
between 28 and 18, but as his book began to be circulated in 7, its
composition may well postdate the legislation of 18 B.c.*°

Dionysius took the traditional philosophical view that the state
depended on households, so the lawgiver should start by regulating
marriages and sexual conduct. Romulus was an effective lawgiver.
Instead of passing specific laws which allowed a husband to sue for
adultery or desertion or a wife for ill-usage, desertion or recovery of
dowry, he secured the good behaviour of wives by making marriage
indissoluble and safeguarding their rights.*! It was traditional that
founders or constitution-makers regulated social behaviour. The Sici-
lian Diodorus (writing ¢. 60-30 B.c., died not earlier than 21) had
recently given fresh currency to the legend that Zaleucus had enacted a
law at Locri that a woman was not to leave the city at night, unless she
was going to commit adultery, or to wear gold or purple unless she was a
courtesan (xII.21.1). Charondas at Thurii was held to have legislated
against adultery and remarriage for men (Stob. Flor. 1v.2.24, cf. Diod.
x11.12.1). Augustus would be expected to link sumptuary legislation and
sexual behaviour.

The restoration of temples in 2842 seems to have been accompanied by
an effort to shore up sexual mores.43 A remark of Livy’s on Roman
intolerance of necessary remedies (Praef. 9) and an ode of Horace (111.24)
suggest that reaction was so unfavourable that Augustus dropped the
proposal for the moment. Horace calls on an undefined man to restore
old values of frugality and chastity to Rome: ‘Oh whoever wishes to take
away impious slaughter and civil madness, if he seeks to have the words
“Father of cities’ inscribed beneath his statues, let him dare to curb
unbroken licence. He will be glorious to posterity.” The benefactor will
need courage, but a later generation will be grateful to him. The link is
made between the vices of parents and the corruption of children: fathers
are avaricious and unscrupulous, mothers, thanks to their rich dowries,
can control their husbands or take lovers. Surplus wealth should be
given to Capitoline Jove (or thrown away). The horsebreaking or

4 Cf. Balsdon 1971 (B 11).

4‘) Ant. Rom. 11.24-26.1. On this tendentious passage see Corbett 1930 (F 630) 219ff,; Watson 1973
(F 701) 34-

42 RG 19.2, 20.4, ef. App. 2; Nep. Aff. 20.3 (temple of Iuppiter Feretrius restored on Atticus’
advice).

4 Prop. 11.7. Cf. Flor. 11.34; Oros. vi.22.3. The view given in the text is best presented by
Williams 1962 (c 251). Badian 1985 (F 4) has recently challenged this reconstruction (with full
bibliography).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

886 18. SOCIAL STATUS

pruning will not be pleasant: penalties will be needed, but legislation is
useless without a fundamental change in behaviour.

Contemporary analysis of social problems focused on morality. Since a
poor man ora slave might be thought to have deserved his lot because of
bad character, we should not expect Romans to see poverty and slavery
as social problems which required cure. But moderns, starting from their
own presuppositions, diagnose slavery and the comparative stagnation
of the Roman economy as the main causes of the top-heavy social system.
The emperors palliated the insecurity of the poor of the city. They also
propped up members of the senatorial class who were unable to maintain
the economic base which public service and high position required.
They sent aid in response to disasters. There was some ‘humanitarian’
legislation on the treatment of slaves, but this was dictated by concern
for morality and the security of the free population rather than for the
slaves: the result might be Claudius’ decree that sick slaves abandoned by
their owners were free, or the Silanian senatusconsultum of A.D. 10
providing for the torture of all slaves present in the house when the
master was murdered.“4 The exceptionally high proportion of slaves in
Italian society depressed the condition of the poorer Romans and their
reproductivity.45 Rome had once had great reserves of manpower: now,
despite her admired generosity with the citizenship, the supply of
soldiers was drying up. Augustus’ preoccupation is indicated by his
introduction of registration for legitimate children and enfranchized
aliens. If, as seems likely, it was Augustus himself who introduced the
rule that soldiers could not marry, he must have been thinking only of
military discipline and not of the usefulness of breeding citizens for the
legions.47

IV. THE SOCIAL LEGISLATION OF AUGUSTUS
AND THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS

The decade after 23 B.c. saw concentrated legislation in various areas.
Augustus himself claimed that his laws re-introduced old standards and
set an example to posterity. Like Horace, he harks back to a mythical
past. Tiberius was in closer accord with the tradition of the republican
aristocracy when he deprecated interference in private morality.#

“ D. 40.8.2. Silanian decree: Barrow 1928 (F 5) 56. See also Watson 1983 (F 702).

43 Tac. Aan. 1v.27.3 for Rome. Brunt 1971 (A 9) 131—5§ for Italy.

Brunt 1971 (a 9) 114 (birth registration mentioned in both the Lex Aelia Sentia and the Lex
Papia Poppaea, cf. FIR.A tt 2~3), ibid. 120 (aliens). See Gardner 1986 (F 34).

47 Dio Lx.24.3 shows that the ban on soldiers’ marriage predates Claudius. Cf. Campbell 1978 (p
172).

48 RG 8.5; Tac. Ann 11.5 2—56.1, especially 54.5, on debate on sumptuary measures in A.D. 22, cf.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOCIAL LEGISLATION 887

Augustus could not enforce his reforms without at least some measure of
consensus: this he presumably achieved by 18, when the Senate and
People approved the Julian law on the marriage of the orders.49 The
Julian law on adultery is convincingly dated to the same year. Some
curbs on luxury had been introduced by sumptuary legislation regulat-
ing public banquets in 22, maximum expenditure on dinner parties, and
perhaps other extravagances which may have included the building
mania attacked by Horace.5?

1. Marriage

Opposition to the marriage law was not stifled when it was passed:
Augustus apparently had to make various modifications (Suet. Aug. 34,
Dio Lv1.10). Major revision (with some concessions) took place in the
crisis year A.D. 9, when the suffect consuls Papius and Poppaeus updated
the Julian law. Some complexities in the administration of the law seem
to have been sorted out by a senatorial committee under Tiberius in A.D.
20 (Tac. Ann. 111.28.6); refinements were introduced by juristic interpre-
tation; later emperors restated or refined the law. The difference between
the Julian and the Papio-Poppaean laws is obscured because the law as it
stood from A.D. 9 is normally cited by the jurists as the Julian and Papian
law. It seems clear that the original law had introduced penalties against
men and women who were unmarried at an age at which they were
expected to be married, or childless at an age when they could have been
parents. It formulated rules about the intermarriage of people of various
classes (which reflected previous custom) and introduced rewards to
encourage parenthood.

The motive for the law seems to have been that Augustus perceived
men as reluctant to marry: he read to the Senate the old speech of
Metellus which contained the hackneyed apergu that, though marriage
had its inconvenient side it was necessary for the survival of state and
family, through the production of children. He also perceived men as
reluctant to father and rear children: Germanicus in A.D. 9 was presented
as a model father (Suet. Aug. 34). This perception of the aristocracy goes
back at least to the second century. Augustus, who held a census in 28,
had hard evidence on the number of children claimed by citizen fathers.5!

11.25—8, especially 28.6 on Lex Julia et Papia; Suet. Ti. 35.1 for family disciplining of adulteresses.
The evidence on the texts of the marriage laws is conveniently assembled by B. Biondi in 4DA no.
28, 166ff. The best account of the law is Brunt 1971 (A 9) App. 8. Cf. Treggiari 1991 (F 70) 277ff.

49 RG 6.2, ef. Hor. Cara. Saec. 176.

50 Carer, 111.1.33ff, 24.3f. For Augustus’ law in 22 B.c. see Dio Lrv.2.3; Suet. Aug. 34; Gell. NA
11.24.14. For the aftermath, Tac. Asn, 111.525 (A.D. 22): Tiberius’ refusal to witch-hunt, although
Augustus’ law neglected. For previous laws see Gell. NA 11.24; Macrob. Saf. 1.13.13.

51 Cf. Brunt 1971 (4 9) 113ff on the Augustan census.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

888 18. SOCIAL STATUS

Dio suggests that there was a known shortage of ‘well-born’ (which
seems in this context to mean freeborn) women: ‘Since males far
outnumbered females among the freeborn, he encouraged anyone who
wanted to marry even freedwomen, except the senators, and he ordered
that their reproduction should be legitimate’ (L1v.16.2). Moderns now
generally agree that marriage between freeborn and freed had not (as Dio
implies) been forbidden before: if he is muddled on this point it does not
inspire faith in his views on the sex ratio.52 Dio may be arguing back
from the law to the situation.5> But if contemporaries perceived a
shortage of women, their best evidence would have been the census, in
which fatherless unmarried women may have been under-reported (as
women are in modern non-industrial populations). A real imbalance
between the sexes might be caused by abandonment or malnutrition of
girl babies. If Augustus saw this as a problem, we might expect measures
against abandonment (which would constitute no greater invasion of
privacy than did his adultery law). But he impartially encouraged the
rearing of children of either sex. Nothing confirms Dio’s alleged cause
for the endorsement of hypergamy for freedwomen, nor did the text of
the law speak only of freedwomen but of freedmen as well (D 23.2.44
pr.).

The law forbade intermarriage of senators, their sons, sons’ sons and
grandsons, their daughters, sons’ daughters and sons’ sons’ daughters
with freed persons, actors and actors’ children. This is the first indication
that the /iberi of senators were to be regarded as sharing and affecting
their status, although they are not yet called senatorii.54 Freeborn Roman
citizens were forbidden to marry infamous persons such as prostitutes. A
person of higher rank was naturally barred from marriages forbidden to
his inferiors (D 23.2.49). Forbidden marriages seem not originally to
have been null but not to have conferred the advantages provided by the
law.

The law was long and complicated. It invalidated provisions against
marriage imposed by third parties. It laid down a series of penalties for
the unmarried (cae/sbes), and for men over twenty-five and women over
twenty who were childless (orbs).55 A caelebs could not take under the will
of anyone outside the sixth degree (unless he or she married within 100

$2 Watson 1967 (F 700) 33ff. For the interpretation of ‘well-born’ see Brunt 1971 (A 9) 558.

53 Rawson 1986 (F 54) 49 n. 51.

4 D. 23.2.44: ‘qui senator est quive filiuis neposve ex filio proneposve ex filio nato cuius eorum
est erit ...’ Cf. Nicolet 1976 (D 53) 38.

58 The prescribed ages for marriages were from twenty (or perhaps less, since this age is directly
attested for parenthood: Tit. Ul/p. 16.1) to fifty for women and twenty-five to sixty for men. (Tis.
Ulp. 16.1; Gnomon of the Idiologus (FIR.A 1 99) 24-8; cf. Sen. fr. 119 Haase; Suet. Claud. 23.1; Tert.

Apol. 4.8. There were grace periods for a woman who was widowed or divorced (two years and
eighteen months from A.D. 9).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOCIAL LEGISLATION 889

days: Tit. Usp. 17.1); a married but childless person could only take half.
Unclaimed property went to heirs or legatees who fulfilled the law’s
conditions or, failing that, to the treasury. The unmarried seem to have
been debarred from public games (EJ? 304, but cf. Suet. Aug. 34.2). The
law offered rewards, for example, to parents of one child by allowing one
year’s seniority in public office® or the right to inherit each other’s whole
estate or to take under the wills of people outside the sixth degree; three
children exempted a father from various legal duties in Rome (four in
Italy, five in the provinces), three enabled a freedman worth HS 100,000
to exclude his patron from inheriting, two to get off services promised to
his patron; three released a freeborn woman, four a freedwoman, from
guardianship (Gai. Inst. 111.44).

The law paid particular attention to the wealthier classes and freed
persons. The reason was probably practical. Although he continued the
grain-dole to adult male citizens in Rome, Augustus was in no position
to finance family allowances for poor citizens (there was occasional
largesse to fathers: Suet, Aug. 46), but he could release /ibertini who
became parents from certain disabilities and duties (which cost him
nothing) and he could interfere with the free transfer of property. In
stopping orbi who had given no children to the state from enriching
themselves with the property of strangers, and in seeing that property
ultimately went to the community, he attacked the problems of avarice
and childlessness. He was concerned to maintain the prestige of the
senatorial class by checking marriage with people who might have
dubious antecedents, but he was not concerned to delineate class
boundaries or to favour native parents over freed.*”

Augustus’ laws responded toa complex situation and shifting political
possibilities. It is a mistake to ask what his one motive was in inspiring
the legislation of 18 B.c. and A.D. 9. The need to encourage nuptiality and
reproductivity in order to supply Rome with soldiers and administrators
appears to have been most prominent in the minds of Augustus and his
advisers. The laws would also serve to encourage the upper classes to
breed sons to succeed them in their dignities and property: it reinforced
the executive measures which Augustus took to recruit qualified men to
the service of the state and to encourage continuity, loyalty and esprit de
corps.%8

% Dio tiv.16.1. Seniority: Lex Malacitana (FIRA 1 24) 56; Gell. NA 11.15.36; cf. Suet. Tid.
35.2.

57 Brunt 1971 (A 9) 561ff.

58 Brunt 1971 (A 9) 104, 114 argues that Augustus’ motive was demographic, but the law ‘would
at best have had lictle demographic effect’ (154). Galinsky 1981 (F 32) concentrates on the need to
maintain the morality and moral prestige of the ruling class. Wallace-Hadrill 1981 (F 73) stresses
economic motives.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

890 18. SOCIAL STATUS

2. Adultery

The Julian law on adultery and extramarital sexual intercourse is
intimately connected with the marriage law.5° It covered adultery by
married women and all kinds of fornication (stuprum) involving a person
of respectable status. Slaves, prostitutes and women in low professions
thought to involve sexual services (for instance, tavern waitresses) were
outside the scope of the law.

Public sanctions against seduction of boys already existed. Adulterous
wives had until now been dealt with by husbands or families, divorced
and sometimes penalized by loss of one-sixth of their dowries or by
relegation 200 miles from Rome. Rapists and seducers could be privately
sued for damages. A permanent court was now set up to deal with
adultery and staprum. The law was exhaustive and complex; interpre-
tation accrued. The most important of the known provisions are as
follows. A husband who knew of his wife’s adultery was to divorce her
(with seven citizens as witnesses, D 24.2.9) and he or her father was then
to prosecute her within sixty days. If he failed to prosecute, then an
outsider might do so within the next four months, or if the husband
failed to divorce, within five years from the alleged offence. A woman
convicted by the court lost half her dowry and one-third of her other
property and was relegated to an island. She could not form another fully
valid marriage. The alleged adulterer might be brought to trial subse-
quently: the penalties were confiscation of half his property and
relegation to a different island. A husband who failed to divorce risked
the same penalties on a charge of pandering, as did anyone who married a
convicted adulteress. A wife could not prosecute her husband for his
adultery with a married woman, but if she connived at it she could be
prosecuted, as could anyone who facilitated the affair. Detailed rules
were laid down on the degree of violence which a husband or father who
caught a woman in the act might subsequently justify. A husband could
defend himself against a charge of having murdered the lover only if the
latter was of low status; the wife’s father could kill any lover caught in
the act, but only in his own or the husband’s house and if the woman was
under his legal control or her husband’s, but he had also at least to
attempt to kill his daughter. Such murders seem to have been rare. The
husband was forbidden to kill his wife.©

In describing the purpose and impact of the law, both ancient and
modern writers tend to concentrate on the provisions about adultery,
which was of interest to jurists because it caused divorce and loss of
dowry. But the law may initially have been motivated not only by the

59 ADA no 14, 112ff. Corbett 1930 (F 650) 133ff; Gardner 1986 (F 33) 127ff; Raditsa 1980 (F 5 3).
© There are traces of killings in second and third century rescripts: D 48.5.33 pr., 39.8; CJ 1x.9.4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOCIAL LEGISLATION 891

conviction that women were evading a commitment to chastity implicit
in the marriage bond and that their adultery threatened the stability of
the family and the production of legitimate children, but also by a
conservative backlash against the mores of the fiercely individualistic
aristocrats, whose conspiracies were allegedly cemented by homosexual
bonds formed in adolescence and by collusion in heterosexual intrigue.®!
The lurid picture painted by Cicero for the entertainment of Atticus
about procurement of an acquittal attests the deep conviction of old-
fashioned Romans that some aristocrats were sexual wafiosi and that
irregular sexual practices were at the root of political corruption.® It is
difficult to separate slander from reality.

Realities of sexual conduct are comparatively inaccessible even
through questionnaire and autobiography, harder to reach by way of
political oratory or erotic verse. Latin literature had recently turned to
exploration of emotional life; in law by about 100 B.c., marriages in
which the husband had legal control of the wife had become uncommon;
women had more independence in the bestowal of themselves and their
property; wives, like husbands, could divorce unilaterally and without
necessarily suffering severe economic consequences, scandal or complete
separation from children. Men connected this social and legal emancipa-
tion with a sexual revolution. The evidence which reaches us is
tendentious and it is impossible to measure the incidence of adultery and
fornication in the society of Caelius and Clodia or of Ovid and Iulia.
Augustus, who suffered not only the usual accusations of homosexuality
but also circumstantial criticisms of adulteries with women of standing,
and who had certainly married the divorced Livia with indelicate haste
(Suet. Aug. 69, cf. his letter to Maecenas: Ep. fr. 32, Malcovati), was ina
good position to assess the sexual morality of the upper classes, but can
hardly have had statistical data.

The severe penalties ordained by the adultery law inflicted suffering
on everyone concerned. A husband confronted with undeniable evi-
dence stood at least to lose his wife (whom he might regret) and also
most of her dowry. Although relegation was not always permanent and
some social life must have developed on the islands, the lives of
condemned women in particular were ruined. The system was (as for the
marriage law) operated by private prosecutors, who, if successful, were
rewarded by a percentage of the confiscated property. This opened the
door to persecution of the wealthier members of society, while it was

61 Suetonius lists the law on electoral bribery between marriage and adultery (Aug. 34; cf. Dio
Liv.16.1).

62 a 1.16 5. On the link between sexual immorality and subversion: Sall. Cat. 15. Homosexual
bonding of conspirators or dangerous radicals: e.g. Cic. Cat. .22f, Dom. 49, Pbil. w.4af;

heterosexual: Dom. 25, 83; Sall. Cat. 25. See Griffin 1977 (c 104) 21f on the ‘stereotype of the man of
action who lives a life of luxury’, alternately admired and attacked.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

892 18. SOCIAL STATUS

hardly worth an outsider’s while to pursue humbler adulterers. It also
meant that a husband, to protect his wife, might divorce and prosecute
her and hope that she would be acquitted (D 48.5.3). The law made some
gestures towards preserving the stability of marriages: for instance, if a
husband kept his wife a prosecutor would have to sue him first, for
conniving (D 48.5.12.10, 48.5.27), and if a divorced woman remarried
without having received notice of prosecution, the prosecutor was to sue
her alleged lover first (D 48.5.18.6, 48.5.12.11), but its overall effect was
to destabilize. Adultery cases could be brought by de/atores, men who
made money and a career by prosecution, and a charge of adultery (how
well founded we naturally cannot tell) was routinely brought when
someone wanted to ruin an imperial or senatorial woman (e.g. Gaius’
sisters, Nero’s wife Octavia).

3. Effectiveness of the laws on marriage and adultery

The laws were praised by Horace, in the Secular Hymn of 17 B.c., for
producing children (17ff) and, in the Odes, for having curbed licence and
restored old values (Carm. 1v.15.9ff). Households were clear of stuprum
and wives bore children who looked like their husbands (1v.5.2o0ff).
Circumspection in recommending extramarital affairs was imposed on
Ovid but perhaps morals were unaffected: Augustus and others in 2 B.c.
discerned promiscuity in the heart of the governing class.

The marriage law of 18 B.c. does not seem to have impelled Horace to
marry; the consuls who proposed the second law were cae/ibes, though it
need not be assumed that they were lifelong bachelors. What was the
situation before? Custom dictated that upper-class women married early
in their reproductive years and, if necessary, often. Since a dowry
provided income, a young Marcus or young Quintus Cicero might start
considering matrimony in his early twenties; the rich eques Atticus
married in his fifties; the normal age may have been in the late twenties.
Men were not necessarily repelled by the idea of marrying: the demo-
graphic problem was that, while generally interested in breeding heirs to
their name and property, they miscalculated by producing fewer than
those needed to replace themselves and continue their lines.6 Most men
had wives through most of adult life. The law sought to make them
marry younger — and here there is some visible impact in the careers of
young senators, such as Agricola — and to rear more children. In setting
the ages of parenthood at twenty for women and twenty-five for men,
Augustus was not encouraging an unhealthy age of first pregnancy: this
requirement suggested an age of marriage of about eighteen for women
and twenty-two or twenty-three for men. Senators seem to have adopted

63 Hopkins 1983 (A 46) chs. 2, 3, especially 6off.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOCIAL LEGISLATION 893

the latter.64 There was no need for the upper classes to change their
habits in marrying off their daughters. The most eligible girls probably
continued to marry before eighteen. One child probably sufficed for
entitlement to inheritances; a bigger family secured seniority in a
political career.

The effect of the adultery law is hard to assess. Its deterrent effect
might be demonstrated by the comparative rarity of known trials. Or did
the upper class close ranks and discourage delation? Augustus himself
invoked it in 2 B.c. and A.D. 8 and sharpened the penalties (Tac. Amn.
111.24.2f). Later attested trials usually involved women of the highest
position and the charge was often linked with treason.® Prosecutions for
stuprum are rarely documented. Tiberius, perhaps deploring Augustus’
interference in private life, as he found sumptuary legislation vain,
encouraged reversion to domestic jurisdiction (Suet. Tib. 35.1),
although he checked women who attempted to evade the law by
registering as prostitutes. Moralists continued to claim that adultery
was rife.67 Domitian revived the law, which may suggest that he thought
the number of prosecutions insufficient. But professional prosecutors
presented a threat to the rich: the law encouraged not only collusion and
cover-up, but blackmail (D 4.2.7.1). Renewal and expansion of both
marriage and adultery laws and the continuing interest of jurists suggest
that, although the laws failed in their general aim and, as Tacitus says,
corruption and legislation went together, they were sporadically
enforced, especially against the rich and prominent.®

4. Manumission

Ambivalent traditions guarded the citizen body. Constant appeal was
made to the ancestral virtues of Romans.and Latins. But the extension of
citizen rights to non-citizens was deep-rooted. The extension was
grounded in practical needs, but justified by the moral qualities of the
recipient — industry, loyalty, courage, eloquence. Men who would adopt
the ancient customs of Romans deserved to be recruited. As the Senate
was theoretically open to the good and rich, so the citizenship was to be
open to the best men of allied states and to slaves and other non-citizens
who deserved well (Cic. Arch. 19, 22ff, Balb. especially 24, 31). The

“ Shaw 1987 (F 65), modifying Hopkins 1965 (F 41); Saller 1987 (F 60).

65 Attested trials or punishments under Augustus and the Julio-Claudians usually concern
members of the imperial family (e.g. the luliae, Appuleia Varilla, Aemilia Lepida, Claudia Pulchra,
Livilla, Octavia).

% Suet. Tib. 35.2; Tac. Ann. 1.8.5; AE 1978, 145 with Levick 1983 (c 369).

67 E.g. Sen. Ben. t.g-10. Various scandals in Tacitus, e.g. Aan. xitt.2t, 42, 44, 45, XIV.1, XV.68.

68 Ann. 111.27.5. Cf. Garnsey 1970 (F 35) 21ff. See further Bauman 1968 (F 6); Garnsey 1967 (D
258).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

894 18. SOCIAL STATUS

enfranchisement of slaves was effected chiefly by their owners by three
formal methods: by the census, by the rod (a procedure before a
magistrate with imperium) ot posthumously by testament.®? The increase
in wealth in the late Republic meant a huge increase in the number an
individual owner could enfranchise; slaves might be freed not as a
reward for long or outstanding service, but in order to give their new
votes or political support to their ex-owner (patronus) or relieve him of
the direct burden of their support, by claiming the grain allowance in
Rome. Private bodyguards and private armies increased the need for
trusted /iberti.0 The right of a citizen man or woman to pass on full
citizen rights to slaves is remarkable — especially when we remember that
a Romana had no vote and could not secure citizen rights to her own
children by a non-Roman husband. Augustus, as patron of the whole
state could not shake this entrenched system, but he had reason to
regulate the influx of citizens which any private owner could create at a
time. Horace, the freedman’s son, in a savage epode had attacked a
former slave, scarred by public flogging, who sat in the fourteen rows
with the eguites (Epod. 4). Augustus, after advertising victory in a ‘slave
war’ against Sextus Pompeius, may well have thought it necessary to
regulate manumission (Cf. RG 25.1; Dio Lv1.33.3). Dionysius explicitly
connects the legislation with a need to keep out criminals (1v.24).

Manumission by will took effect on the owner’s death, by census only
at Rome and sporadically (and this method became obsolete under
Augustus), by the rod only when a magistrate was available (but in the
provinces as at Rome) (Tit. U/p. 1.6-9). For convenience or haste,
owners might free their slaves informally, by a written or verbal
declaration. This method did not confer citizenship but allowed the slave
temporary liberty, which might be protected by the praetor.’! Any
property, or children born to an informally freed woman, belonged to
the master (fr. Dos. 5). Equity demanded that owners should not be
encouraged to shrug off their responsibilities while retaining their
privileges in this way.72

Three laws regulated manumission, the Lex Fufia Caninia of 2 B.c., the
Lex Aelia Sentia of a.p. 4 and a Lex Iunia of uncertain date, which is
associated with the Aelio-Sentian law and seems to precede it. It fits well
with Augustus’ social engineering (particularly with an urge to keep
legal status tidy) and may tentatively be assigned to 17 B.c., the period of

69 Cic. Top. 10; Watson 1967 (F 700) 185ff; Treggiari 1969 (F 68) 2off.

70 Treggiari 1969 (F 68) 11ff.

1 Gai. Inst. 111.56; fr. Dos. 5; Buckland 1908 (F 645) 444ff; Treggiari 1969 (F 68) 2off.

72 Fora brief account of the history of manumission down to Justinian see Watson 1987 (F 703)
23ff. On the Augustan legislation, Buckland 1908 (F 645) 533ff; Bradley 1984 (F 10) 87ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOCIAL LEGISLATION 895

Augustus’ major efforts in this area.73 The Lex Iunia recognized
informally freed slaves and gave them freedom and a half-citizenship, as
‘Junian Latins’, like that of Latin colonists of an earlier age. The law
specified that the owner must want the slave to be free and that he must
be worthy of freedom in the opinion of the magistrate whose duty it
would be to protect him; there were various details about the rights of
owners.’4 The law proved useful and adaptable: further rulings were
gradually added.’5

Another area was regulated by the Fufio-Caninian law, which limited
the numbers an owner could free by will. This method was popular
because it displayed generosity at the expense of heirs. Augustus
introduced a sliding scale: testators might free both slaves if they only
had two, half the total if they had two to ten, a third if ten to thirty, a
fourth if thirty to 100, one fifth if 100-500, and never more than roo. But
they might always free as many as they would have been allowed if they
had been in the category below (so an owner of thirty-two might free ten,
rather than eight). This law applied only to will: an owner could still free
as many as he liked in his lifetime.” Augustus had now regulated the two
methods of manumission which had previously needed no specific
ratification by public authority.

The Lex Aelia Sentia was a comprehensive law on manumission and
the resulting rights of patrons and /ibertini. It required the freedman to
show gratitude. It contained a requirement that the manumitter must be
over twenty, but if he could prove a valid reason before a magistrate with
imperium and a special council (five senators and five equites in Rome, or
twenty citizens in the provinces) he could free by the rod (or infor-
mally).”” The motive must be honourable: this was interpreted as
meaning that the council might approve manumission of a blood relative
or quasi-relative such as a nurse, a benefactor or a girl a master wanted to

73 As Buckland 1908 (F 645) 5 34ff, Duff 1928 (F 28) 210ff and others argued, against those who, on
the basis of a shaky late text (Just. Ins. 1.5.3) which names it the Lex Junia Norbana, want to put it in
A.D. 19 (when a pair of consuls had the requisite names). The positive argument for the Junian law
antedating the Aelio-Sentian rests on Gai. Inst. 1.29 and 31, which suggest that slaves freed under
thirty were Latins before the Aclio-Sentian law granted them the right to acquire full citizenship by
claiming a one-year-old child. A suitable date would be 17 8.c., when C. Iunius Silanus was consul
and Augustus was able to concentrate on social legislation. Also possible is 25 8.c., the consulate of
M. Iunius Silanus, favoured by de Domenicis 1966 (F 27) and by Atkinson in her interesting re-
assessment, Atkinson 1966 (F 3) 366. Sherwin-White 1973 (A 87) 332ff argues for a Tiberian date.
The evidence does not permit a sure solution.

4 Gai. Inst.1.17, 226; fr. Dos. 6-15; Tit. Ulp. 1.10, and other references in Buckland 1908 (F 645)
533f. The law is not in ADA.

73 Atkinson 1966 (F 3) 362f argues that the Lex Aelia Sentia incorporated part of the Lex Iunia.
For further rulings on Junian Latins see Gai. Inst. 1. 32bff.

% Gai. Inst. 1.43ff; Tit. Ulp. 1.24; Paulus, Sent. tv.14.4. See further ADA no. 35, 202ff.

7 ADA no. 36, 205ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

896 18. SOCIAL STATUS

marry. The law also introduced a minimum age for the slave, thirty,
again with the possibility of justifying exceptions before a council.’8 A
younger slave did not become a citizen, but probably a Latin.”? The law
also invalidated manumission which defrauded a creditor or a patron,
and it debarred from either citizen or Latin rights slaves previously
punished as criminals by their owners or the state, by whatever means
they were freed. These were put in a pre-existing category of particu-
larly recalcitrant surrendered enemies, the dediticit. They had to reside at
least 100 miles from Rome®! and could not make a will? or inherit.83
Junian Latins were prohibited by the Junian law from making a will (Tit.
Ulp. 20.14). Unlike dediticii, they were encouraged to become full
citizens. For instance, a man freed under thirty who had become a Latin,
could prove that he had in accordance with the Aelio-Sentian Law
married a Roman or Latin woman and had a year-old child and claim
promotion to full citizenship for himself and his family.& The Visellian
Law, under Tiberius (?a.D. 24) gave Roman citizenship to Junians who
served six years in the vigi/es; a Claudian edict to those who built a ship of
at least 10,000 measures and transported grain to Rome for six years, and
Nero to those who built a house in Rome costing at least HS 100,000.85
Formal repetition by iusta manumissio after thirty also gave full citizen-
ship.® This law, among other things, laid down guidelines for magis-
trates who authorized a manumission.

Ancient sources thought Augustus aimed at checking the flow of
servile and foreign blood into the citizen body.8? Though the Fufio-
Caninian law may have reduced the number of manumissions, the rest of
his legislation blocked only criminal ex-slaves and made access to
citizenship easier for others. He aimed to regulate, not to stop the
talented and energetic. Pollution by foreigners remained a favourite
theme of writers. But by the time of Nero it could be argued that most
senators and equites had ex-slaves in their family trees (Tac. Ann.
XIII. 27.2).

Later emperors also intervened. The Visellian law regulated the
promotion of freedmen, pursuing those who sought offices reserved for
the freeborn, unless they obtained the gold ring by application to the

7% Gai. Inst. 1.18-19, with details on causae; Tit. Ulp. 1.12.

% As Tit. Ulp. 1.12 says for one freed testamento. Gai. Inst. 1.16f seems to make this certain.

8 Tit. Ulp. 1.11; cf. Gai. Inst. 1.13 ff.

81 Under penalty of re-enslavement: Gai. Inst. 1.27, 160.

82 Either Roman, because they were foreign, or peregrine, because they had no citizenship (Tit.
Ulp. 20.14). 83 Gai. Inst. 1.25, 11.74-6; Tit. Ulp. 22.2.

4 Gai. Inst. 1.29—32b; if he died his wife could still claim, 32; later extended to other Junians Tif.
Ulp. 3.3.

83 Tit. Ulp. 5.5; cf. Gai. Inst. 1.32b, heavily restored; Gai. Inst. 1.32, Tit. Ulp. 3.6; Gai. Inst. 1.53.

8 Gai. Inst. 1.35, Tit. Ulp. 3.4.

& Suet. Aug. 40.3; cf. Dio tvt.33.3. Rejected by Atkinson 1966 (F 3) 357.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE PRINCIPATE 897

emperor (CJ 1x.21), but also, as we have seen, assisting their rise in return
for public service. Under Claudius, an important step was taken to
channel talent into the service of the emperor himself, when Pallas the
financial bureau chief excogitated a senatorial decree which ensured that
if a slave lived in quasi-marriage with a free woman, his owner could, if
he wished, take her and her children as his slaves. (The children would
otherwise have been freeborn and illegitimate, and their father’s owner
have no rights over them.) The Senate may have thought they were
repressing ambitious slaves and punishing perverse women, but the
main motive was probably to allow the emperor to recruit back into his
service the promising sons of his slave bureaucrats.88 This system is
introduced just when it seems that the upward mobility of slave ‘civil
servants’ was recognized enough for them to become eligible husbands
to freeborn women (although these were often daughters of imperial
liberti).®9 We see in this later legislation nuanced measures designed for
the state, not in the interests of any one group. It is unprofitable to expect
general laws to be simple enough to be labelled as ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ a whole
category of the population, let alone such a large and heterogeneous
group as the slaves of Roman citizens.

V. THE IMPACT OF THE PRINCIPATE ON SOCIETY

Mixed ‘marriages’ (legally contubernia) between slave and freeborn
persons are a striking indication of the fluidity of status which increases
thanks to the dominant influence of great patrons and new opportunities
for enrichment and influence which begin in the years of eastern and civil
wars in the eighties B.c. and continue at least until the end of the Julio-
Claudian period, vividly illustrated by the clients and freedmen of Sulla
and Pompey and by the great Pallas and Felix. These brothers (so
probably home-born slaves) were freed by the younger Antonia,
daughter of Mark Antony and Octavia, and were employed, by her son
Claudius, (probably) Pallas as a rationibus and Felix in such posts as the
governorship of Judaea (52-60). Pallas’ work and influence were
acknowledged by the grant of praetorian insignia; Felix is alleged to have
been married successively to three foreign princesses, including a
granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra. The imperial slave or freed

88 On ‘civil servants’ see above all Weaver 1972 (D 22). For this explanation of the SC
Claudianum, 162ff. Cf. Weaver in Rawson 1986 (F 54) 145-69. Talbert 1984 (D 77) 441 lists the
sources. The rule may also aim at acquisition of new slaves in general and avoidance of loss of
patronal! rights. 89 Gai. Inst. 1.84, 91; Tac. Ann. x11.53.1; Weaver 1972 (D 22) 162ff.

% For Pallas, see Oost 1958 (c 383). For Felix, Weaver 1972 (p 22) 279. His name is proudly
evoked by his daughter in commemorating his great-grandson, a boy of senatorial family (CIL v 34,
Pola).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

898 18. SOCIAL STATUS

civil servants have rightly been seen as a ‘symptom of the interpenet-
ration of classes in Roman Imperial society’.%!

Great freedmen consorted with senators and members of the imperial
family (Pallas was an ally of Agrippina and accused of being her lover).
Another of Antonia’s ex-slaves, Antonia Caenis, was influential not only
as a confidential secretary but as the mistress and later concubine of a
future emperor, Vespasian. Claudia Acte in a similar role exercised
influence and acquired wealth through Nero. Freedmen, barred nor-
mally from a public career, and freedwomen, barred, among other
things, from marriage with senatorii, were partly dependent on their
patrons, a dependence which could increase their usefulness and
opportunities.

Imperial /iberti provide a striking illustration of the difference the
Principate made to Roman society. It was shocking to republican
sentiment if dependent freedmen who were employed by patrons who
held public office displayed their influence or wealth. Pompey caused
offence; Cicero was discreet. Everyone needed the services of confiden-
tial administrators.°2 Augustus perforce continued the system, but on
the whole succeeded in not publicizing the important role played by his
own freedmen.% But while the freedmen of republican governors were
important as long as their patrons were in office or power, the servants of
Augustus who met the growing need for skilled subordinates could
enjoy a longer and more secure career. For the first time, one man in
control of Rome could evolve policy over a long period and needed a
large and complex staff to supervise its administration. The beginnings
of the ‘civil service’ under Augustus are obscure, for the surviving
epigraphic data are thin. But it is clear that a staff of slaves and freedmen
who belonged to the emperor himself and undertook specialized tasks
which supported him in his public role gradually evolved during his
Principate. Their legal status was that of his private household and
individuals may have moved back and forth between functions which we
would regard as domestic and those we would regard as public. They
range from accountants and secretaries to the aqueduct workers re-
cruited by Agrippa and bequeathed to the emperor, who remained as a
distinct corps. Their social and economic position varied accordingly.
These imperial civil servants parallel the apparitores. By the end of the
Julio-Claudian period a (flexible) career structure had been established.
The new minimum legal age of manumission seems to have been
regarded as the norm. The death of an emperor implied no serious break

91 Weaver 1964 (F 77) 315, quoted by Crook 1967 (F 21) 64.

9 Treggiari 1969 (F 68) 15 2ff.

93 Suet. Aug. 101.4 gives away the real importance of his servants. Augustus was scrupulous in
refusing to invite freedmen to dinner (ibid. 74).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE PRINCIPATE 899

in continuity. The imperial bureaucracy functioned efficiently under a
Nero and only the most prominent freedmen might fail to survive a
change of dynasty. The most successful might be the ancestors of
senators; the ordinary freedmen of the emperor enjoyed advantages
unobtainable by the poorer freeborn citizen of the capital. It is the
patronage of the emperor and the administrative needs of the system
which fostered the growth of this bureaucracy. Just as Augustus shaped
the senatorial and equestrian orders to provide a pool from which
provincial administrators and army officers might be drawn, he created a
permanent substructure of lesser functionaries.

Senatorial sources, alert to detect that an emperor was swayed by non-
senators and people excluded from a constitutional position, would
attack wives, mothers and mistresses as well as ex-slaves. Women of the
imperial family were like freedmen in dependence and influence.
Antonia, Octavia’s younger daughter by Antony, for instance, seems to
have endeared herself particularly to Augustus and Livia. She was kept
in reserve as a bride for Livia’s son Drusus (they married when he was
twenty-two and she twenty), allowed to remain a widow on his death
(she had the requisite three children, but might normally have been
expected to remarry, since she was only twenty-seven) and held an
important position as the sister-in-law of Tiberius, the mother of
Germanicus (Tiberius’ adopted son), the grandmother of Gaius and his
ill-fated brothers. She was a noted deployer of patronage, in the manner
of noble matrons, which had been expanded by Livia. Good fortune in
marriage alliances and motherhood and discreet conduct maintained and
enhanced the position of Livia® and Antonia; the fortunes of others
fluctuated. But the Principate gave the emperor’s kinswomen opportu-
nities richer than those enjoyed by republican ladies. Dynastic planning
by Augustus and his closest advisers brought noble families successively
into the imperial network, which was scarcely expanded by transient
marriages of later principes. The pattern remained that dictated by
Augustus, the descendants of his recruits providing new matches.
Emperors’ wives whose position depended entirely on their husbands,
like Nero’s Poppaea, could never attain the importance of the unrivalled
Agrippina, daughter of Germanicus, sister of Gaius, niece and then wife
of Claudius and mother of Nero. Since influence depended on a
woman’s position in relation to the current emperor, it often shifted.
Widowhood might push the elder Agrippina or Livia Julia to the
margins of power. Women had no lasting constitutional position. The
emperor might bestow the title ‘Augusta’. But there were no empresses,
either as consorts or as mothers. Regnant women were even more
unthinkable. On the other hand, the position of women and children

4 See, e.g. Tac. Ann. v.1, Dio Lvtt.t2. % Tac. Ann. x11.42.3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

goo 18. SOCIAL STATUS

related to Augustus was at once recognized by Romans and provincials.
Augustus’ house was princely; the ladies might in the East be honoured
with the attributes of suitable goddesses, in the West have towns named
after them. Group portraits of the family set up by loyal towns may
include women and children.®

The independence and individuality of women (despite the restric-
tions of the marriage legislation and their deployment as brides) is
signalled by nomenclature. Few aristocrats in the Republic used a second
name for women. Practice becomes more flexible from Augustus on,
starting with the top. Livia Drusilla dropped her second name; her
stepdaughter Iulia’s daughters were known as lulia (a striking departure
from the rule that legitimate daughters take the father’s name) and
Agrippina (from the father’s cognomen). The daughter of Drusus and
Antonia was known not as Claudia, but by the two gentile names of Livia
(from her paternal grandmother) and Iulia (presumably from her step-
grandfather, Augustus). Maternal descent in a dynasty founded by a man
without a son acquires an importance unrecognized in old agnatic
theory. The upper class follows suit. There was also continued progress
in economic rights.°’ Accidents of survival and inheritance often
concentrated economic power in the hands of women in all the
propertied classes and no doubt down to the level of market-women.%

The existence of a ‘court’, with various nuclei (the circle of Iulia was
distinguishable on sight from that of Livia: Macrob. Sat. 11.5.6) changed
the focus of society. Promotion was validated by the princeps, perhaps on
the recommendation of a Livia, a Maecenas or a Pallas.°? Subventions to
enable a senator to maintain his status or dowries to protégées flowed
from the imperial family, who in turn were enriched by legacies from
foreign kings and wealthy Romans. Yet this was the last efHorescence of
the old aristocracy. The Julio-Claudians and their kin died out, the last
males wiped out by Nero, only one great-great-granddaughter of
Augustus, Iunia Calvina, surviving under Vespasian. Then unallied
republican nobles also disappeared; the newer families show little
continuity in senatorial status. The turnover accelerated as senators were
recruited from all over the empire.

The Flavii represent the gradual rise of an Italian family. T. Flavius
Petro, a municeps of Reate, after serving under Pompey in the civil war, is
said to have retired to his home town to earn his living as a debt-collector
(like Horace’s father). His son Sabinus according to some was a
professional soldier who perhaps rose to be chief centurion of a legion,

% Cf. Syme 1984 (c 231). An arch at Pavia had statues of ten members of Augustus’ family,
including Livia and Germanicus’ sons Nero and Drusus (CIL v 6416= EJ? 61= AN 28).

7 Dixon 1984 (F 26). % E.g. Setali 1977 (F 64) 239; Treggiari 1979 (F 69).

% Cf. Syme 1939 (A 93) 365f; Sherwin-White 1973 (a 87) 225ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE PRINCIPATE go!

according to others first an excise-officer in Asia and then a banker in the
Alps. His wife, Vespasia Polla, from a well-established family of Nursia,
had more distinguished connexions: her father was an equestrian officer
and her brother became praetor. Their two sons, Sabinus and Vespasian,
both achieved a senatorial career, though Vespasian was late in embark-
ing on it. Sabinus rose to be prefect of the city and Vespasian, through
military ability and (it was alleged) the favour of the emperor Gaius and
the imperial freedman Narcissus, to be proconsul of Africa and com-
mander in the Jewish War, before he made his bid for the supreme
power.'© This was the culmination of the advancement of Italian
families which Augustus had begun.!0!

A policy of enfranchizing suitable provincials and of promoting
promising men from one level to another in the hierarchy of service is
deduced from the emperor’s reported actions and from the epigraphic
records of individual careers. Comparatively few junior candidates can
have been personally known to the emperor. Some were recommended
to him by his advisers or their patrons. The system secured the
controlled promotion of others, for instance the auxiliary troops who
on discharge became citizens. By the end of the Julio-Claudian period
the citizen body was much expanded and both equites and senators were
of more diverse origin than in the late Republic. The Alexandrian Jew,
Ti. Tulius Alexander, would not have been prefect of Egypt under
Augustus as he was under Nero.!° Roman society continued to show
remarkable powers of absorption at all levels. Newcomers, says Tacitus,
were assimilated through customs, liberal arts and marriage ties (Ann.
x1.24.10). Despite their anxiety to conform, they contributed to the
gradual changes of Roman culture. Though they might adopt Latin, new
names, Roman cults, the practice of Greco-Roman rhetoric or the
“epigraphic habit’, they might cling, for example, to non-classical ideas
of visual art, to foreign deities and old customs. Enfranchized Jews,
numerous in the city by the time of Caesar, communicated to Rome the
idea of the week and a weekly day of renewal (e.g. Hor. Sat. 1.9.69; Ov.
Rem. Am. 219).

The imperial peace and Augustan reorganization meant that Roman
citizens were spread over the old and newly annexed provinces as never
before.!03 Veterans and some civilians were sent to colonies; peasants

100 Suet. Vesp. 1ff. The significance of the account of the family’s rise is independent of the precise
accuracy of variant details. 101 Syme 1939 (A 93) 359ff, 383.

102 Chastagnol 1973 (p 31); Brunt 1975 (£ 906) and 1983 (D 26); Demougin 1982 (D 36).

103 A pleasing example of the cultural mosaic is provided by EJ? 363, from Ithaca, in whicha slave
shopkeeper boasts of his passing there during the triumviral period and gives a trade address which
the reader is expected to know refers to Rome: ‘Epaphroditus (slave) of Novius, perfumer from the
Sacred Way, was here on 1 October in the year when L. Comificius and Sex. Pompeius were consuls’
(35 B.C.).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

go2 18. SOCIAL STATUS

displaced in the reallocations of Italian land in the civil war period
emigrated to provinces; provincials, particularly the upper classes, were
gradually enfranchized. The army provided continual geographical
mobility for citizens and a route to citizenship for non-citizens. By the
end of our period Italians were not joining up in such numbers as they
had under Augustus: in part this may be an indication of the prosperity
of Italy (so that their economic prospects in civilian life were now
better). Augustus had done much to promote the standard of living of
urban Italians, though nothing directly to solve the social problems
caused by the agrarian economy.

The Roman plebs, losing political power, gained in material advan-
tages, which ranged from a fire brigade to attractive places of public
resort. The esprit de corps and energies of the guilds (collegia) were
regulated and scope found for the ambitions of comparatively humble
men for community service and social recognition. In Italian towns
freedmen in particular enjoyed the office of Asgustales. Such bodies
directed loyalty to the emperor and created outlets for ambition, altruism
and talent. The activity of guilds and boards of minor officials seems to
have been a ‘grassroots’ phenomenon. The upper-class bias of our
sources must not blind us to the strong sense of personal worth and of
community which is often attested by the lower classes. The population
of the capital was heterogeneous, including the poorest of native-born
labourers, craftsmen and shopkeepers, the great households of the rich,
foreign traders and envoys. But Rome could still elicit loyalty from the
descendants of slaves. An actor and freedman of Claudius or Nero, with
the pleasing name Tiberinus, is commemorated by his mother (presum-
ably a freedwoman, but of another family), who makes him claim, ‘Rome
is my fatherland, my parents are from the heart of the plebs.”!% Despite
the insecurities and miseries of life, those plebeians who could afford to
commemorate themselves show the vigour, independent spirit and
cockney pride which Horace caught in his portrayal of the auctioneer
Mena (Epist. 1.7.46ff). The type survives the Augustan revolution and
the steady influx of freedmen and foreigners. At this social level, the
impact of emperors is limited. But the institution of what, in contrast to
republican /aissez-faire, must be regarded as responsive government with:
some ability to plan ahead produced an Italian heyday.

The Roman world was opened up both physically and mentally. The
Principate brought improved roads, made safer from brigands, sea-lanes
at risk from weather rather than pirates. But more important was mental
attitude. A new mood of optimistic imperialism encouraged Italians to

104 CIL v1 33960 = 10097, Ti. Claudius Esquilina Aug(usti libertus) Tiberinus. Note that the
tribe is given ‘... Roma mihi patria est, media de plebe parentes ...’. Brunt 1971 (F 12) 148ff draws
up a balance-sheet of the socio-economic situation of the rural and urban plebs under the Empire.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE PRINCIPATE 903

enjoy that share in the empire which two generations earlier had been
denied them and annexed new citizens to the service of Rome. Provin-
cials recognized that they belonged to an empire ruled from Rome (Luke
2:1). As it was natural for a clever young man from Sulmo to make a
career in Rome, whether he decided to be a senator or a poet, so humbler
Italians marched out to all the frontiers, to war down the proud and
exploit, bully, love or learn from the local people. If we look at the
experience of the citizen of non-Italian descent, we see that by the time of
Nero, Paul knows people he can write to not only in cities of the Greek
East, but in Rome and the household of Caesar. It is hard to imagine that
his opposite number in republican Rome would have had a similar
mental map.

In upper-class life, Vespasian marks a sharper social break than
Augustus. A change of taste, personified by the Sabine grandson of a
Pompeian centurion, accomplished the switch in mores which Augustan
legislation had been powerless to effect. People like Velleius or the
Plinies now outnumbered survivors of a frivolous society like Ummidia
Quadratilla. According to Tacitus’ diagnosis, luxury and display, which
lasted from Actium to the war of A.D. 68/9, gave way to parsimony, when
they became dangerous and when new men of simpler tastes came to
power. Or is there merely a cyclical pattern (Tac. Amn. 111.55)? Cicero
and Horace would perhaps have been disappointed by the change they
had advocated. But the demographic problems remained. Rome never
had hereditary monarchy or hereditary Senate. Some sons of senators
lost their census qualification, some opted out, some families lacked
sons. Eguites might, like Ovid (Tr. 1v.10.27ff, cf. Hor. Sat. 11.3.168ff),
refuse promotion. A trickle of the new rich, often freedmen, percolated
into the higher strata: their sons were eguites, their grandsons even
senators. Members of the richest classes moved in and out of functions in
high administration.

Society changed between 44 B.c. and a.D. 69. Some developments,
such as the improved right of succession given to women, seem to have
happened because views of the family continued to move further away
from patriarchy and emphasis on agnatic relationships. Augustus merely
hastened this trend. Others, such as greater social mobility up or down,
were caused or increased by the major upheaval of the civil wars. Where
before there had been a number of principes viri at the top of the social,
economic and political pyramid, the emperor now stood alone and his
kin and close associates occupied the strata below him. The whole of
society felt the effect of his presence. For instance, his servants,
particularly Axgusti liberti, outranked other freedmen and might even,
for wealth and influence, counterbalance senators. But no emperor could
alter the basic social structures, even had he wished. The rights of

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

904 18. SOCIAL STATUS

citizens to own slaves and to enfranchize by manumission were unassail-
able. Marriage remained consensual. Reproductivity continued to be
controlled by living conditions, not fiat. Planned legislation had less
effect than the superimposition of an emperor on the constitutional,
economic and social structure and the actions of the individual rulers.
The effect of these was to unify the empire as never before; to draw in
foreigners to the citizenship and recruits to the army and higher
administration, and to produce a more broadly based and transient elite
of officials within the upper classes. Beneath the princeps, Roman society
remained a pyramid, but peace, prosperity and enfranchizement
increased the relative size of the propertied classes within the citizen
body. The social structure of the ruling elite survived the Julio-Claudian
period, but its membership and tone were transformed.

Emperors affected society by legislation and the deliberate institution
of certain practices, by individual acts of patronage (beneficia), by
acquiescing in practices or institutions initiated by others, by the
example which they set and by just ‘being there’. Augustus deliberately
undertook social engineering; his successors were normally concerned
to continue what he had begun. Social legislation was effective in setting
up a framework in which people should operate, but not in attacking
perceived moral problems. The emperors stimulated social develop-
ments which were not the primary object of their actions or over which
they had no direct control. It would be naive to expect otherwise.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 19

LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

GAVIN TOWNEND

I. DEFINITION OF THE PERIOD

While the age of Golden Latin is accepted as straddling the late
republican and Augustan periods, the division between these two is
particularly arbitrary, with no satisfactory date to set as the boundary —
neither the death of Cicero in 43 B.c. nor the victory of Octavian in 31.
Sallust survived into the 30s, but is properly classified as republican on
the basis both of subject-matter and of attitudes; Nepos, still alive several
years after Actium, likewise looks back to the last period of the Republic
and shows no real affinity to the new age; Marcus Varro produced a great
part of his work during Cicero’s lifetime and his De Re Rustica in 37/36
B.c., although he was still writing when he died in 27, the year when the
name ‘Augustus’ appeared, to distinguish the new era beyond doubt. On
the other hand, within a year or two of qo B.c. the emergence of Octavian
Caesar as champion and saviour in the first Eclogue establishes Virgil as an
Augustan from the start; while the fourth of the series, for all its puzzles,
is already looking into a future of peace and prosperity. The dedication
to Maecenas of both Epodes and Satires 1 attaches Horace openly to the
imperial entourage, even if the decisive poems belong relatively late in
the decade. The 30s are in every way a period of transition, in literature as
in politics. The two previous decades had seen the great advances of
Catullus, Lucretius and Cicero, the last with his expressed determination
to make Latin literature the equal of Greek in every department. In the
20s a confident professionalism manifests itself, with the major theme of
patriotism flowering in the Augustan peace and with unthreatened
leisure for the romantic games of elegiac and lyric poetry. The lessons of
Cicero’s mastery of language for a whole range of literary purposes are
available for application to poetry and prose alike, without yet becoming
stereotyped as technique replaces original imagination, but with ars
matching ingenium even more completely than Cicero had observed in the
work of Lucretius.

Yet from the start imagination had its limitations. The emulation of
Greek models so desired by Cicero was to lead inexorably to the
summing-up by Quintilian towards the close of the following century,

9°5

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

906 19. LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

with parallel lists of writers in Greek and in Latin, carefully arranged
according to their genres and set before the reader as models for imitatio
in the pursuit of rhetorical excellence. This avoidance of innovation and
failure to welcome the concept of change is paralleled in Roman politics
and life in every period. Iulius Caesar had outraged the establishment, at
least, by preparing to change the shape of the state as arbitrarily as he
changed the Roman calendar. The ‘Roman revolution’ of Augustus
owed much of its success to the extent to which change was concealed
under the cover of ‘restoration of the Republic’, and insistence on
precedent was emphasized at almost every stage under the early
Principate. Throughout three centuries of imperial development, there
was apparently never a moment when an emperor or a political theorist
so much as contemplated the suitability of the machinery of government
and society to its changing function and attempted to lay down the
pattern for a fundamental revision. In a very similar way, literary
criticism is essentially conservative, with iitatio as a basic presupposi-
tion: first the transference into Latin of forms and ideas derived from the
Greeks; then the recognition of a Roman master in the relevant field,
whether a Lucilius (one of the few genuine innovators), a Cicero, a
Cornelius Gallus or a Virgil, and an attempt to adapt his achievements to
new themes and new demands; and all the time compliance with the rules
of the genre, one of a limited number with names revealing their Greek
origins,! and on a lower level with the conventions of such forms of
expression? as the propemptikon (farewell to a traveller), the soteria
(thanksgiving for safety), the &/etikon (invitation) and others less clearly
named or defined.

Only the genre of satire has no formal Greek model and no Greek
name — indeed no secure Latin name either, until the tradition started by
Ennius’ satura prevailed over Horace’s preferred and clearer title of
Sermones (conversations). At the same time the rules of the genre were
established almost as firmly as those of almost any other, allowing that an
inherent formlessness was part of the tradition; so that dactylic hexa-
meters were prescribed, as already sometimes in Ennius and always in
Lucilius after his early experiments. This was at the cost of excluding that
eccentric alternative tradition known as ‘Menippean’, characterized by
the total lack of formal rules to the point of mixing prose with verse in all
sorts of metre. Quintilian could not help recognizing this variant, as
introduced by so reputable a writer as Varro; but the examples which
have come down to us in fragmentary form from the Neronian age,
under the uncertain titles of Apocolocyntosis and Satiricon, are not
acknowledged by Quintilian or any other critic of the classical period.

' Quintilian gives a full list and discussion of the Greek genres at Inst. x.1.46-131.
2 For a full list (perhaps unjustifiably full), see Cairns 1972 (a 13), esp. Ch. 3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE 907

The exclusion of satire from the canon of regular genres is marked by
its admission into Latin of Greek words and phrases, a licence shared by
those two minor genres never fully recognized by the Greeks although
invented by them, the epistle (whether in prose or in verse) and
biography. The true Greek genres are accepted by the Latin writers
without real question, and there are only minor attempts to cross the
boundaries between them and to form such hybrids as Hamlet’s
‘tragical-comical-historical-pastoral’, which still show the dominance of
the classical categories. It is rare for a major writer to go as far as Virgil
does in borrowing formal elements from tragedy to relate the story of
Dido, and from Callimachean epyllion to describe Evander’s reception
of Aeneas on the Palatine. Once Cicero, Virgil and Horace were securely
established as paragons in their different fields, their influence was
paramount; and even in the Silver Age, starting with the death of
Augustus and running on well after the disappearance of his descen-
dants, reactions against the masters, such as those of Seneca and Lucan
never escaped from dependence on the genre.

II. PATRONAGE AND ITS OBLIGATIONS

The social position of literature at Rome, never as fully integrated into
the life of the'city as it had been at Athens during the fifth and fourth
centuries, changed markedly after Actium, when oratory lost its pre-
eminence with its divorce from a genuine political function. Already at
the end of the second century B.c. the function of drama, whether tragic
or comic, seems to have been greatly diminished, as the population
became too big and too cosmopolitan to provide the common cultural
background necessary for a mass audience. Drama survived, so far as it
did, simply because of the major reputation of tragedy and comedy
among classical genres, and revivals may have depended for their appeal
largely on the spectacle.4 There is virtually no evidence that the
contemporary tragedies written by Q. Cicero, Caesar or Asinius Pollio
ever reached the stage or were even intended to.

Instead, literature becomes more and more the property of an elite, as
Horace repeatedly emphasizes.5 Writers had never expected direct
financial returns from the sale of their works, so long as there was no
possible system of copyright or royalties; and men like Terence, of
provincial origin and low rank, had attached themselves to prominent
figures in society, without any apparent loss of creative independence.
Even Lucilius, financially secure and proud of being his own man, took

3 It is far from clear what sort of performance actually filled the theatre in Rome and outside. In
Augustus’ reign they certainly handled scripts in Greek and Oscan (Suet. Axg. 43.1, etc.); cf.
Rawson 1985 (F 55) 97-113. 4 Eg. Plut. Lue. 39.5.

5 E.g. esp. Sat. 1.4.70-5, 137-9, 10.72-92.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

908 19. LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

pleasure also in being a close associate of Scipio Aemilianus, and did not
object to devoting two or three of his satires to attacking his patron’s
political enemies, while confident of freedom from reprisals. Of the
major writers of the last generation of the Republic, Cicero, Varro and
Catallus had no need of literary patronage; the position of Lucretius and
his possible dependence on C. Memmius remains mysterious.®

During the years from Philippi to Actium, political protection was
perhaps more important; and the writer is traditionally pictured as
dispossessed of his property and as welcoming the patronage of a great
man for financial security at least. This tendency is perhaps accentuated
by the fact that the great majority of writers, both in the Augustan period
and throughout the following century, came from outside Rome, from
the towns of Italy proper (Horace, Tibullus, Propertius, Ovid), from the
old province of Cisalpine Gaul (several of the earlier neoteric poets,
Cornelius Nepos, Virgil, Livy, and in due course the two Plinies), from
southern Gaul (Cornelius Gallus and perhaps Tacitus a century later), or
from Spain (the two Senecas, Lucan, Columella, Quintilian, Martial).
But most of these men of letters appear to have enjoyed comfortable
means and independent position, and to have fully assimilated into
upper-class Roman society, with traditional Roman ideas and standards.

Not dissimilar was the position of Greeks, now rivalling Italians in the
equestrian civil service, as the authors of extensive prose works in their
own language. None of these comes from old Greece: Dionysius of
Halicarnassus combines orthodox and respectable literary criticism with
antiquarian history, evidently to present Rome to the Greek-speaking
world, in Rome and in the provinces; Nicolaus of Damascus stands
sufficiently close to Augustus to exploit the emperor’s own apologia in
the composition of his highly favourable biography, and then attaches
himself to Herod the Great as a spokesman for the king and his people;
Diodorus from Sicily writes voluminous if uninspired history, as does
Strabo from Pontus, now known only from his geographical work.
These men hardly need to be counted as ‘Augustan writers’, however
important their work may have been in making the new era acceptable to
the hellenistic world and cementing the unity of Greek and Roman after
the rift in the 30s. Some time later, Philo of Alexandria, well known for
his activities as a spokesman for the Jews under Caligula and Claudius,
but mainly concerned with arguing the connexion between Greek and
Jewish philosophy, belongs almost exclusively to his own hellenistic-
Jewish society; but the Greek epigrammatist Lucillius, largely interested
in music and drama, must have some claim as part of the literary scene of
an emperor as philhellene as Nero. But, outside the field of diplomatic
activity, where Greek oratory found a new and increasing role in the

6 Cf. Wiseman 1974 (B 197A) 26-39.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE 9°9

mouths of envoys from provincial communities, the dependence of any
of these men on the support, financial or otherwise, of Roman patrons is
impossible to determine.

The picture is much clearer for the most prominent of the Augustan
poets. Horace, son of a freedman and starting badly by fighting for the
losing side at Philippi, became an accepted member of Maecenas’ well-
defined circle and was able in due course to give up his post as seriba and
to settle down as a small country gentleman with a modest apartment in
the capital. The later offer of the post of secretary to Augustus himself
seems to have been rejected rather from aversion to regular employment
than from any fear of subservience to the emperor’s wishes (Suet. Vita
Hor.). Virgil, losing his family estate near Mantua, sought and gained the
support first of Pollio, a distinguished writer himself and an independent
politician, and then of Maecenas to restore his position and presumably
to promote his literary career. He appears to have given up his connexion
with the north and lived for the most part near Naples (Suet. Vita Ver.).
Financial considerations were to some extent involved in these and other
cases, even if the claim to poetical poverty in Tibullus, as in Juvenal in
the second century, is nothing but a literary convention. But the main
objective appears to have been status and connexions.

It is hardly now believed that Maecenas (and still less Messalla, as
patron of Tibullus and others) actually prompted the composition of
particular works for quasi-political reasons, apart from such piéces
d occasion as Horace’s Carmen Saeculare, written in 17 B.c. for a specific
religious festival and with an obvious political aim; nor that Livy, close
to the imperial family though he was and possibly financially rewarded
for his help to the young Claudius in composing history, needed official
direction to make him an active defender of ancient traditions and
values, such as Augustus admired and wished to propagate.’ In fact,
Livy was notorious for his republican sympathies and particularly for his
support of the memory of Pompey, which excited Augustus’ comment
but did not lead to the withdrawal of his friendship.® We certainly fail to
find the sort of subservience which might have been expected of court
poets. In the light of what we know of the war of propaganda which
developed between Antony and Octavian during the late 30s, before
Actium and probably earlier, it is noteworthy that there is no sign of the
poets’ involvement in this campaign. Even in Horace’s Satires, where
Lucilius had provided some precedent for attacking a patron’s enemies,
Antony appears only once (1.5.33), with an oblique reference four lines
earlier to aversos amicos to be reconciled by the envoys, and there is no
trace of criticism or hostility. In the diplomatic purpose of the trip to
Brundisium, on which Horace and Virgil accompanied Maecenas,

7 Syme 1959 (B 177); Walsh 1974 (B 191A) 5-6. 8 Suet. Claud. 41.1, Tac. Ann. 1v.34.3.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

g10 19. LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

Horace assumes complete lack of interest. Again in the Epodes (vii and
xv) he twice laments the civil strife of the period without any suggestion
of partisanship or idea of solution, while in the first of the series, whether
written for the expedition against Sextus Pompeius or Antony, Horace
gives no hint that the temptation to accompany Maecenas was due to
anything but personal affection.®

The Eclogues were a less likely medium for expressing political views,
and Virgil does no more than address Octavian, unnamed but unmistak-
able, as patron and protector in the first poem; while in the fourth
contemporaries may have been more confident than we can be of the
extent to which Octavian, or indeed any specific individual, was the
subject of hopes or praise. In the Georgics, once peace had been
established, Octavian can be hymned as the greatest of benefactors,
deserving the title of godhead in the same way as Lucretius had
honoured Epicurus for his blessings to mankind (v.7ff); and in 111.16
Virgil promises a new poem centred on ‘Caesar’ as if on a god. Yet it is
difficult to see how the four books, with their periodic outbursts of
depression leading sometimes to despair, can be regarded as the sort of
propaganda for an officially inspired revival of agriculture that historians
used to claim they were.

When the next work came to be written, Virgil may have been aware
that Augustus (as he now was) wanted a national epic to indicate the
position of the princeps in a re-born Rome and an extended empire,
together with an exposition of the moral values on which the new age
was to be based; but it cannot be supposed that the Aeneid was in any way
what had been suggested or expected. The term ‘propaganda’ fits
awkwardly here,!° despite the explicit recognition in three major
passages (1. 286-96, with its notorious ambiguities, v1. 791-805, and vill.
671-728); and there are all too many passages which appear to question
the full worth of the leader’s triumph. An epic intended simply to glorify
and justify the character and victories of the ideal ruler, with Aeneas in
some degree representing and prescribing the pattern of the just and self-
sacrificing princeps, as Virgil’s hero appears to do, could have reached the
conclusion of the conflict against his rival without a savage killing,
which, however acceptable in the context of heroic warfare and however
justified in terms of statecraft, still has to be carried out in the madness of
rage and revenge.'! The great majority of contemporary readers, like the
majority since then, will have been sufficiently carried along by the force
of the narrative to accept the death of Turnus as dramatically and morally
appropriate; everything we can infer about Virgil indicates that he can

9 Contra, du Quesnay, in Woodman and West 1984 (B 204) 19-58.
10 Cf. the dismissal of the dichotomy ‘poetry or propaganda?” in the Epilogue to Woodman and
West 1984 (B 204) 195. "Aen. xu1.946—-7, ‘furiis accensus et ira terribilis’.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE git

never have been happy about this resolution of the problem. Likewise,
the inflated praise of Augustus’ young nephews and son-in-law can
properly be seen as a tribute to the princeps and his bereaved sister
Octavia, as if the poet might hope thereby to gain favour; but the fact
that Marcellus’ death concludes and crowns the long pageant of the
glories of Rome suggests that what matters most to Virgil in the end is
the price paid for military and political triumph and the irredeemable
sorrow for the death of a young man.!2 A whole-hearted panegyric of the
Augustan achievement, however full of hope for the future, did not
require both its halves to end in such a minor key.

The failure of Horace to realize what might have been expected of the
laureate, who could produce the Carmen Saeculare and hymn the victories
of Drusus and his brother in Carm. 1v.4, is more obvious and less
demanding of explanation. The Roman odes of the third book are full of
noble sentiments and an expression of true Roman virtues; but they
hardly add up to the direct propaganda that has often been seen in them.
All too often, as in m1.4, overt praise of Augustus drifts off into the poet’s
private reactions and his addiction to wine and girls; while private odes
on themes of self-indulgence and the shortness of human life not only
predominate in the collection but are commonly felt to reveal Horace at
his most effective. We appear to have another Augustan spokesman who
can hardly be held to have produced exactly what the Augustan age
demanded.

This leads to a question which is especially pressing in connexion with
the opening decades of the Principate: the tendency of poets to
propound a set of values totally at variance with the major programme of
moral reform whereby Augustus was hoping to bring Rome back to the
greatness of earlier centuries. Respectable private and public behaviour,
the marriage of Roman men to Roman women, the production of true
Roman children to fight Rome’s wars and carry on the traditions of 700
years — these are the most obvious of the ideas on which the Julian
legislation and Augustus’ own injunctions sought to base the new
society of citizens. Of the poets who might be expected to promote these
ideas, Virgil never married, and seems to have had homosexual inclina-
tions, if any. Horace likewise remained celibate, although he gives the
impression that he followed the Epicurean practice of sexual indulgence
with women and boys indiscriminately to work off natural needs when
they arose, as first Lucretius and then the satiric spokesman of Saf. 1.2
had recommended. This may be merely the convention of the genre, but
Horace nowhere attempts to suggest anything else — certainly not that he
ever contemplated any sort of permanent union.

For the three elegists, things are no better. Tibullus and Propertius, as

12 v1.868-86, with Otis 1963 (B 135A) 303-4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

gi2 19. LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

poets, are romantically inclined bachelors, Tibullus expressing affection
for boys no less than for girls; as men, they may have had wives and
children. The anonymous life of Tibullus is too fragmentary to establish
his marital status, unless by negative inference, although Pliny’s friend
Passennus Paulus (Ep. v1.15) appears to have claimed direct descent
from Propertius. Whatever may be the truth of that, their love-poetry is
as extramarital as that of Catullus, without ever a hint of true love leading
to marriage or to possible divorce and the infringement of the rules of
class. The only claim to paternity in the whole of Augustan poetry is
Propertius’ negative assertion (11.7.14) that he would produce no sons to
fight Rome’s wars — no sons at all, indeed, for this is no pacifist manifesto
— and that the emperor’s wishes have no validity in the context of love.
Ovid is even worse. He married three times and, like Augustus,
produced one daughter, the only attested child of any major republican
or Augustan poet; but his poetry reveals a still more irresponsible
rejection of the Augustan ideal. In the Ars Amatoria, as already in the
Amores, he describes a world devoted to philandering and promiscuity.
In particular, he pays what must have been a most unwelcome tribute to
the age of Augustus and its moral climate, when he declares (Ars Am.
III.121~2), ‘I congratulate myself on being born now and no earlier: this
age is suited to my way of life.’ On this reckoning, the new pax Augusta
had produced the circumstances for an unworried self-indulgence, quite
unaffected by the emperor’s pronouncements and legislation aiming at
the restoration of old-fashioned values. This attitude of Ovid’s (‘prisca
iuvent aliis’) must have been largely responsible, perhaps even more than
his questionable complicity in the intrigues of Augustus’ grand-
daughter, the younger Iulia, for his banishment to the Black Sea in A.D. 8
— the clearest example known to us of a decisive punishment visited by
Augustus on an offensive writer, and one never revoked by his
successor.

In his attempts to secure his recall from exile, Ovid indulged to some
extent in the sort of flattery which becomes more and more noticeable as
the Julio-Claudian age advances. In Tiberius’ reign, Velleius Paterculus,
while evidently paying due credit to the emperor’s earlier successes as a
military leader, clearly expresses himself in stronger terms than the truth
required.!3 Poets in the following reigns were guilty of increasing
servility, often revealing a tendency to build up the achievements, or at
least the promise, of a new emperor by blackening the name of his
predecessor. There is some evidence that the same is true of some of the
lost historians of the Julio-Claudians, such as Servilius Nonianus and
Cluvius Rufus, if not of the more solid annalists, Aufidius Bassus and the

3 E.g. 11.94.1-3, 124.1—3; but see Woodman 1977 (B 202) 54-5; Goodyear in Kenney and Clausen
1982 (B 95) 659-40.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE 913

elder Pliny.'4 Certainly Seneca’s A pocolocyntosis (if that is the proper name
of the Ludus de morte Claudii), mocks the dead Claudius and exalts the
young Nero in a way which appears to illustrate the development of the
historical tradition from reign to reign. Even the very fulsomeness of
flattery may sometimes have suggested an element of irony which rather
implies mockery — a device which many have seen in Catullus’ praise of
Cicero in poem 49. The subtlety which this technique would require
means that today we can never confidently assess the poet’s sincerity.

Flattery must necessarily have occupied a great amount of the oratory
which was delivered during the period, if Pliny’s surviving Panegyric
provides a fair example for this earlier part of the century. But that
speech, delivered in A.D. 100 under Trajan, is the first we possess in full
since the death of Cicero. The considerable fragments of Claudius’
speech delivered in A.D. 48 on the admission of Gallic notables to the
Senate and preserved on a bronze tablet at Lyons, reveal the antiquaria-
nism of the speaker, who knows that he does not need eloquence or
cogency to gain his point. Tacitus, who claimed that the role of oratory
had virtually ceased with the end of open discussion under the Republic
(Dial. 40-1), gives his own version of the same speech, with considerable
freedom, but reproducing the same qualities accurately enough (Amn.
x1.24). We cannot tell whether other speeches from the period inserted in
the Aznals are as closely related to the speaker’s recorded words; but it is
noticeable that the most powerful come from men of independent mind
upholding their own ideas of freedom — ideas which interested the
historian far more than any speeches which have simply approved of the
emperor’s policy. Thus we have a speech from M. Terentius (v1.8),
protesting against the doctrine of guilt by association; from Cremutius
Cordus (1v.34-5), defending the rights of the historian; and from
Thrasea Paetus (xv.20—1), upholding the old values of Roman administ-
ration by Roman magistrates. The eloquence may be Tacitus’ own,
interested to emphasize the voices of independent spirits. In any case,
there is a significant, and probably deliberate, link with the republican
ideal of unfettered rights to express one’s beliefs and act according to
one’s conscience, without ever proposing any genuine reform of the
imperial system or expressing concern for the great majority of people
whose interests might be affected.

This ideal, harking back to the heroic names of the younger Cato, of
Brutus and Cassius, appears to have provided a continuous focus for
discontent among senators throughout the first century. We lack
Tacitus’ account of the debate which followed the murder of Caligula,
when the abolition of the Principate was allegedly debated for the first
and last time; but hostility to tyranny, if not to autocracy, plays an active

'* G. B. Townend Hermes 88 (1960) 98-120, 89 (1961) 227-48.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

914 19. LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

part in the literature of the period. The actual expression of this hostility
in the political field is regarded by Tacitus as fruitless and exhibitionist
(Agr. 42.4-5); and he puts similar words into the mouth of Tigellinus,
which he himself might not totally disclaim, blaming Stoicism for this
truculence and mischief-making (Ann. x1v.57, supported by Agr.
4.4-5).15

Thanks to the loss of all of Livy’s later books, we can form little idea of
his treatment of the rise of Augustus to supremacy; but nothing suggests
that he expressed hostility to the new settlement. Velleius Paterculus, to
be discussed below, is too deeply devoted to Tiberius to reveal any
reservations, and Curtius Rufus, writing his history of Alexander the
Great apparently under Claudius, steers well clear of all but the most
conventional reference to the contemporary world. Of the other main
writers who recorded the reigns of the various Julio-Claudians within a
few years of their deaths, Aufidius Bassus, Cluvius Rufus, Fabius
Rusticus and the elder Pliny, we can infer little except that they provided
a steady annalistic record of events and a great deal of highly hostile
anecdotage to be used by Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio. There is
no trace of any sort of republican sentiment, except in Cremutius
Cordus, of whom we know at least that his remarks about the republican
heroes, Brutus and Cassius, offended Tiberius enough to lead to
prosecution and the ineffectual destruction of his works, which survived
to gain a reputation for freedom of expression, and the surprising
approval of Caligula (Tac. Ann. 1v.34-5; Suet. Calg. 16.1). Titus
Labienus, an outspoken orator and historian, shared the same fortune,
without apparently expressing any positive republican views (Sen.
Controv. x pr. 5~8).

In practice, the ‘Stoic opposition’, while confined to a small group of
interrelated families, appears to have been sentimental and ineffectual,
with Stoic language often playing no more significant a part than much
of the traditional Christian language does in the literature of recent
centuries in Britain. But Stoicism is still prominent in Latin literature of
the Silver Age which follows Augustus. The Stoic concepts which
feature in Manilius’ astronomical poem are a feeble attempt to match the
glowing Epicureanism of Lucretius, without any sort of credibility or
cogency. More importance can be attached to expressions of hostility to
Nero, as dominus rather than rex, found in Seneca and his nephew Lucan.
Seneca produced a manifesto in favour of the just ruler in the De

18. The word ‘Stoic’, like the ancient literary terms ‘lyric’, ‘tragic’ and ‘satiric’, must be recognized
as possessing a very precise sense in antiquity, deriving from the philosophical school of Zeno (33 5—
263 8.c.) in the Stoa Poikile (painted portico) in Athens, with its rigid doctrines of absolute virtue
and duty, of acceptance of divine destiny combined with involvement in public life. In particular,

the Roman Stoics expressed opposition to tyranny and admired Caesar’s opponents, Cato and M.
Brutus.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE 915

Clementia, which he wrote for his pupil Nero early in his reign; and the
same ideas appear scattered through his other works, particularly in the
tragedies, where tyrants from Greek myth are employed presumably to
cast light upon the contemporary situation, as some imitator of Seneca
did more overtly in the play Octavia, written not long after Nero’s death,
with Nero as the stock tyrant and Seneca as the sage counselling restraint
and justice. The whole tradition about Seneca has been bedevilled from
the first by the paradox of the declared Stoic preacher, albeit of the new
liberal type, who advocated the simple life but possessed immense
wealth, which he was alleged to have increased by highly questionable
financial practices, and who acted as tutor and then as minister to the
unteachable and irresponsible Nero.

Seneca was driven to his death in a.p. 65 for his supposed complicity
in the ‘Pisonian conspiracy’, if not its leadership. This plot certainly
aimed at the assassination of the emperor (in the best tradition of the
Athenian and republican tyrannicides) and at his replacement either by
the unimpressive aristocrat Piso or by the elderly and ailing Seneca
himself. So little was achieved that its true details cannot be discovered,
if the conspirators indeed shared any common aim beyond that of
murder.!6 To judge from Seneca’s literary utterances, tyranny was
abominable enough to warrant such an action, although he never
actually recommends it. The link between philosophical theory and
effective political action remains tenuous.

More certainly prominent in the same conspiracy was Lucan, des-
cribed by his biographer as virtually the standard-bearer of the affair. His
motive appears to have been that Stoic opposition to tyranny which
features with increasing force in the books of his Be//um Civile, after the
gross flattery of Nero with which the epic opens, closely matched by the
panegyrics of contemporary poets and by Seneca himself in his Apocolo-
cyntosis a few years earlier. Despite the claim in 1.3 3—45 that the civil war
was justified as leading to the eventual accession of Caesar’s descendant
Nero, and despite the evident fascination of Caesar as the natural hero in
comparison with the ineffectual Pompey, the poem turns into a clear
indictment of Caesarism, with such phrases as ‘Caesareae domus series’
(1v.823) among the holders of bloody power pointing unmistakably at
the latest of the line. But despite this ideological motive, there is reason
to suppose that Lucan was primarily inspired by personal rancour from
his loss of favour with Nero after he had been so rash as to surpass his
patron in poetic skill. In the light of what follows, the flattery in the first
book is a prime candidate to be considered from its very excess to be
ironical in intention, even before the open break with Nero had taken
place.

16 Griffin 1984 (C 352), esp. 166-70.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

916 19. LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

It is difficult to know how much consistency we should look for in
such a poet, or whether he was capable of any degree of subtlety. To
judge by the evidence of Tacitus (Amn. xv.56—7), supported by Sueto-
nius, Lucan’s Stoicism did not establish his fortitude; for he turned
state’s evidence at the first threat and incriminated his own mother and
several others, before recovering his philosophical principles and com-
mitting suicide in the tradition of the republican martyrs and his uncle
Seneca. The biography by Vacca ignores all this story of cowardice;
while Statius, in his commemorative poem (Si/v. 11.7), contrives to say
nothing at all about the circumstances of Lucan’s condemnation and
death. There is incidentally no reference to his relationship to Stoics in
any of these sources. The ancient biography of Persius, on the other
hand, makes much of his training in Stoicism and his links with
prominent exponents under Nero: he was much more deeply imbued
with Stoic ideas and language than Lucan. But neither these ideological
opponents of the establishment nor those most inclined to support the
imperial system appear to have been able to exploit their convictions to
the major advantage of their works, in prose or in verse. Only the two
greatest of the Augustan poets found valid inspiration in some of the
emperor’s ideas and madea significant contribution to the new political
order; but their reservations were always striking enough, as we have
noted at the start of this section, to ensure that their independence never
degenerated into subservience.

Itl, RHETORIC AND ESCAPISM

In a world where political comment was perilous and profitless and
speech-making had no real political function, the development of
rhetoric was at once natural and paradoxical. Cicero had not only
provided a model for oratory; he had produced a series of treatises which
could be the basis of training in all the necessary techniques. The
establishment of rhetorical schools for young men of means is more or
less contemporary with the rise of the Augustan age, as professionals
took over where Cicero had left off in his coaching of aspirant politicians.
Much of our knowledge of this training is contained in the Controversiae
and Sxasoriae, collections published by the elder Seneca during the reign
of Tiberius of the rhetorical exercises performed by teachers and their
pupils and preserved as examples of the craft. Stock themes were
provided, whether of hypothetical legal problems or of situations from
myth or history, which the student was required to develop in his own
way, so as to catch and hold the attention of the listening audience and
give them something to remember. Originality of expression was all-
important, no matter how trite the material; and great value was attached

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

RHETORIC 917

to the senfentia as the pithy and memorable phrase, often containing
paradox and seldom concerned with real life or with the actual problems
to be encountered in the courts or the Senate. Many listeners besides
Petronius (Sat. 1-2) and Juvenal (1.15—17, vil.150—4) must have suffered
from the crambe repetita of the same old material, whether served up by
the inept or by the intolerably ingenious. But rhetorical training seems to
have been more or less compulsory for any young man who wanted to
make his way in public life and for many who had no such ambition.
Certainly it shows its influence in most of the surviving literature from
the very beginning of the Augustan period. Nota little of Virgil’s power
can be seen to depend on his absorption of the Ciceronian rules for
producing effective arguments, although the technique is never allowed
to take precedence. Ovid’s Heroides display most clearly the young poet’s
delight in all the devices of rhetoric, which he had learnt in the schools,
gaining a distinction on which the elder Seneca comments. The Heroides
are essentially similar compositions, depending for their success on
immense dexterity in saying the same thing in an endless variety of
different ways, as heroine after heroine laments her unhappy lot. Much
the same is true of many elements in the Metamorphoses, particularly the
actual descriptions of transformations of men or women into other
creatures or plants. The ability to play this game with such unwearying
freshness makes Ovid the perfect example of how the techniques of the
schools could best be exploited in the most unlikely literary forms.
The vitality and originality which characterizes the literature of the
Augustan age declines sharply during the succeeding reigns. In prose,
Valerius Maximus, as much a devotee of the rhetorical schools as the
elder Seneca himself, produces a series of books containing exempla of
virtues and vices for the orator to exploit in his own compositions; but
he has been unable to resist treating them in the fashionable rhetorical
manner, often at the cost of clarity, in his attempt to avoid the monotony
which such a catalogue might involve. It must have been very difficult
for the aspiring speaker to incorporate such sophisticated material into
his own speeches. At about the same time, Velleius Paterculus sets out to
relate the history of the world in two books (an understandable reaction
to Livy and Diodorus); but the need to cover the same stories, which
generations of historians had dealt with in their own ways, constrains
him to use all the devices of technique in pursuit of his own sort of
originality. He is no master, as Ovid had been; and his account of the
Battle of Actium (11.85) illustrates excellently the deployment of ingeni-
ous language which fails to leave any impression either of what really
happened or of its historical significance. The battle had presumably
been dealt with in Rabirius’ lost epic and perhaps in Varius Rufus’
panegyric of Augustus, as it was by the author of the De Bello Actiaco,

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

918 19. LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

which survives in papyrus fragments;!?7 even Livy may have found it
advisable to treat the subject as an excuse for rhetorical display rather
than as an account of tactical moves and individual prowess. After these,
and who knows how many other versions, there was little left for
Velleius to do except to search for paradoxes as the schools had taught
and the fashion demanded.

For the younger Seneca, trained in the manner illustrated by his
father’s works, the exposition of his chosen subject, philosophy, as a
guide to life, a purpose of some weight and significance, continually
tended to be dominated by the need to express the same doctrine again
and again in striking and memorable phrases. The Epistulae Morales,
generally regarded as the most successful and attractive of his volumi-
nous works, suffer from something like the same fault as Ovid’s Heroides:
that, no matter how deeply felt, the subjects are so repetitive that they are
kept going, up to the grand total of 124, by ingenuity rather than
anything else. The same is true of the philosophical dialogues, enlivened
though they are by striking exempla, as if to demonstrate how Valerius
Maximus’ anecdotes might be applied to a good purpose. Novelty of
expression is the more necessary as Seneca is not searching for philoso-
phical truth, as Plato does, so much as preaching an accepted code,
enriched from Epicurus and elsewhere, to assist the reader in coping
with the problems of life, and doing so in sucha way as to seize and retain
the attention by force of language. Apart from modifications of
traditional Stoicism, Seneca, like most Silver Age writers, makes very
little positive addition to what has been said before.

The nine tragedies which have come down to us under Seneca’s name
share enough of the characteristics of his prose works to make the
slightly uncertain attribution of most, at least, virtually certain. Derived
obliquely from Greek tragedies, mostly extant works by Euripides or
Aeschylus, they have been totally adapted to the taste of the day, in
which stage performance was a minor consideration, if indeed contem-
plated at all. Stoic doctrines, with the usual love of paradox, colour the
speeches of kings, queens, commoners and choruses alike; and the
dramatic flow is almost entirely sacrificed to the succession of telling
sententiae, few of them appropriate to speaker or circumstances. Topics
recur in speech after speech in different plays (freedom and tyranny,
death as an escape, the wise man’s invulnerability), but so skilfully
organized that the sameness is at least masked at the first reading.
Although limited by the settings of the plays, the ideas and expressions

'7 Cf. H. Benario, ‘The Carmen de Bello Actiaco’, in ANRW Il, 30.3 (1983) 1656-62. The
fragments preserved in fact deal with events in Egypt some time after the battle and exhibit a
freedom in imaginative fictions which do not suggest a composition as early as the Augustan age

proper.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

RHETORIC 919

are much the same as those of the prose works, only made more remote
from the reader by transference to the unreal heroic world of Greek
mythology.

The same combination of rhetoric and philosophy shows itself
inevitably in Seneca’s nephew, Lucan; although for him philosophy is
not a major preoccupation, but simply a source for ideas and common-
places, together with the accepted link of Stoicism with the republican-
ism which colours the narrative of the Bellum Civile. This story, already
related in prose by Pollio and Livy, is made the field for the same sort of
cleverness as we find in Seneca, with rather too many memorable phrases
for more than a handful to deserve remembering, and with almost
unlimited skill in making the same ideas sound fresh each time they
occur. Lucan’s originality lies partly in his choice of a subject from
relatively recent history (although almost from the start poets had
followed the laureates of Alexander the Great in writing short-lived
accounts of Rome’s glorious victories or of the achievements of the latest
military hero, whether Marius or Caesar, Octavian or Germanicus),
partly in his deliberate rejection of the conventional Homeric gods so
busily employed by Virgil. This may be regarded as a concession to
Stoicism, allowing Fate to play the dominant part rather than the
eccentric and partial Olympians.

At least one can find in Lucan enough independence from tradition to
grant him a degree of self-confidence hardly to be matched elsewhere in
the derivative literature of the period. Our other surviving Silver Latin
epics, by Silius Italicus, Valerius Flaccus and Statius, date from the
Flavian dynasty; but they continue the general tendencies of the Julio-
Claudian writers virtually unchanged, with the same desire for effect,
which had begun as early as the major elegists, together with the same
sensationalism and bloodthirstiness. All look back rather than forward,
with Virgil always at hand as a model: the contemporary world or the
future has no part in their scheme. It seems most unlikely that Statius’
German War cut any new ground, in manner or subject-matter.

There may have been other important poets in the period from
Tiberius to Nero, but even their names are lost. We do possess a number
of minor poems, some falsely attributed to the young Virgil, perhaps to
replace the master’s lost juvenilia. These are commonly dated after the
death of Augustus, but are essentially continuations of the practices of
the great Augustans. None contains a hint of genuine creative potential.
More interesting is the group of more or less court poems from the reign
and perhaps from the circle, of Nero: pastorals from Calpurnius Siculus
and from an anonymous poet preserved in a manuscript at Einsiedeln,
quite competent but uninspired pastiches of Virgil’s Ec/ogues, though
hardly to be mistaken for Virgil, containing considerable florid emphasis

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

920 19. LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

on the golden age of the young Nero and no likelihood at all that their
panegyric is ironical. Likewise, and possibly from the pen of these same
writers, is the panegyric of Calpurnius Piso, perhaps the patron of
Calpurnius Siculus, which essays to praise without relevant material to
hand. This ineffectual praise points to a subject as dubious as the
supposed leader of the Pisonian conspiracy of A.D. 65, and underlines the
lack of valid themes for poetry during this period. What we know of
Nero’s own poetry on the Trojan War does not suggest that he was
concerned with anything but the manipulation of words or hoped to
establish any relevance of the Trojan War to his own day.

The reaction against these poetical fashions, especially epic as written
by Nero himself, is found in Petronius, rather too intimate a member of
the imperial clique for his esoteric criticisms of Lucan and others to be
fully comprehensible to us!® (neither as parody nor as models for
improvement do they really make sense). And in Persius, whose charges
of vapidity, affectation and effeminacy show at least that he has not got
Lucan in mind, there is a strong protest against those who have nothing
to say and use fanciful and contorted language to say it (1.32—-5, e¢ alibi).
Yet Persius, setting out to write satire in the tradition of Lucilius and
Horace, has chosen an almost impossible course. He declares his
intention of using everyday language (v.14, verba togae), as his pre-
decessors had done, but his complex allusiveness requires an intimate
knowledge of Horace and probably of other writers no longer available
to us. His dizzying switch of metaphors and his unexpected linking of
words produce a texture which is anything but conversational (as satire
or sermo had come to expect), straightforward or unaffected. And his
material is all from stock: themes and phrases from Horace and the Stoic
tradition make up a great part of it. But at least Persius comes closer to
touching the heart than any other writer in a period when literature is
tending to become a private pursuit to be practised and enjoyed in the
sort of group of mutual admirers described by Persius in satire 1 and by
Tacitus in Amn. xtv.16, as led by Nero and evidently supported by Lucan
before the rupture. Horace and Virgil may to some extent have distanced
themselves from all but a very select public by the complexity of their
texture and their demands on the reader’s knowledge and sensitivity; but
they still provided plenty to engage a wide interest, with no reason for
anyone to complain of the irrelevance of their poetry to the contempor-
ary world.

One method of finding material for poetry without touching too

18 The poet Eumolpus (apparently not intended to represent any living writer) utters in Sat. 89
sixty-five lines in iambics on the Sack of Troy, as if to combine the theme of Nero’s main poem with
his addiction to appearing on the tragic stage; and in 119~24 nearly 300 hexameters on the same civil
war between Caesar and Pompey which Lucan took as his subject.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JUSTIFICATION 921

directly on the perilous issues of the day, a method already practised by
Catullus and followed by the Augustans and on into the Silver Age, was
the Alexandrine device of exploiting Greek mythology to provide either
examples or actual subjects for poetry. Virgil’s use of the Trojan War and
the adventures of the Trojan Aeneas to provide an aetiology for Rome
and for the Augustan settlement is on a different level (or series of levels)
from any other borrowing we are aware of. The use of lesser myths,
some of extreme obscurity, by Horace, Tibullus and Propertius to
Uluminate erotic and other topics in contemporary life, whether ser-
iously or ironically, enriches their poetry immensely, without necessarily
adding to the impact.!9 Ovid, after playing with Greek stories similarly
in his early love-poetry, turns to myth asa subject in its own right for the
Metamorphoses and the Fasti, largely in order to deal with erotic themes
without causing further offence to the moral climate of Augustan
reform. With very little serious intention and with all the apparatus of
rhetorical mastery, he tells his stories for their own sake and with
immense success.

Major Greek myth serves a much more solemn purpose in Seneca’s
tragedies, a field in which Roman subjects had hardly ever proved
effective; although, as already remarked, some fairly close follower of
Seneca was before long to devise in the Octavia a tragedy built round the
efforts of Seneca himself to dissuade Nero from adopting the role of
tyrant, and Tacitus (Dia/. 2-3) reports the immediate impact of dramas
on the themes of Domitius and Cato at about the same date. Epic, with
the major exception of Lucan, depends likewise on myth, as we see it in
the Flavian age with Valerius Flaccus’ retelling of the Argonaut story
and with Statius on the Theban and Trojan wars. For Silius Italicus the
Punic War was very nearly as mythical as the legendary wars of Greece;
and Curtius’ version of the history of Alexander in prose is essentially
part of the same process. Juvenal, in his first satire, laments the tedious
dominance of the Greek cycles of mythology, in tragedy and epic alike,
and he is supported by numerous epigrams of Martial. Their criticism
evidently applies to almost the whole of the first century after Christ.

IV. THE JUSTIFICATION OF LITERATURE

Various reasons were advanced during the period for writing and for
reading different sorts of books. For Quintilian, writing on the training
of the young orator, almost all literature could contribute to the mastery
of rhetorical techniques, even Catullus and Lucretius. He has no place
for works which do not belong to the recognized genres, such as
Phaedrus’ fables or Petronius’ picaresque novel.

19 E.g. Hor. Carm. 111.11 and 27; Prop. 1.20 and passin.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

922 19. LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

Again, as Homer was often regarded by the Greeks as a repository of
knowledge on all manner of practical matters, so a whole range of Latin
works existed primarily as sources of information. Here Vitruvius On
Architecture is an accepted example, with no literary pretensions, but
demonstrating his practical value when he became a working handbook
for Renaissance architects. Mela’s Geography, limited though it is, could
be of some use. Celsus On Medicine, as on other branches of knowledge in
books now lost, seems to have been properly and exclusively concerned
to impart information.

With the agricultural writers, however, Varro’s practical application
seems largely to be sacrificed to literary considerations, Columella’s
rather less so; but when Columella completes his treatise with a book in
hexameter verse, he is deliberately placing himself beside Virgil’s
Georgics, the practical value of which, whether for constructing a plough,
selecting a lucky day for various activities, or replacing a stock of bees,
makes no claim at all for serious consideration. Likewise Manilius,
following Cicero’s translation of the hellenistic Aratus’ astronomical
poem, is concerned rather to write poetically than to provide genuine
information; and it is noticeable that Tiberius’ heir, Germanicus, during
the same period chose to attempt an improvement on Cicero’s Aratea as
a purely literary challenge. For Quintilian, such didactic poets as
Lucretius and Aemilius Macer are classified along with Virgil, as writers
of epic, without concern for their subject-matter. It is certainly difficult
to regard Grattius on hunting, Horace on poetry, or Ovid on the
calendar (and perhaps on fishing) as allowing their subject to take
precedence over their art.

The moral purpose of literature, taken over from the Greeks and
emphasized in numerous apologias for the time spent on composition, is
especially prominent in historiography, where there is a claim that
reading about the past will enlighten and improve the quality of life,
private and public, in the future; Cicero adds that this interest was not
confined to the elite (De Or. 1.59~61). There is a similar assumption that
the main function of satire is moral, if not precisely didactic. Yet in
Horace’s Safires it is apparent that his primary purpose is neither to
attack vice nor to advocate virtue: it is rather to discuss themes,
ostensibly moral or not, in such a way as to involve the reader in a
humane attitude to life and mankind. Only perhaps in the sequel, the first
book of Epistles, can Horace be felt to provide specific moral admonish-
ment to his addressee and thus to the reader, as when he encourages
Tibullus to count his blessings and enjoy life as Horace does (4.12—16),
or warns Celsus not to be too pleased with himself (8.15-17); and even
in this book the majority of poems are concerned rather to play round

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JUSTIFICATION 923

quasi-philosophical commonplaces. Persius, Horace’s successor in the
Lucilian tradition, preaches with some fervour the urgent need for moral
reform and for escaping from the ties which hinder moral freedom, but
in such a way that everything takes second place to style and the striking
expression. Seneca, whose philosophical works are certainly less theore-
tical than practical, uses the epistolary form to exhort his friend Lucilius,
and so the general reader, often with a personal reference to his own
circumstances and shortcomings which owes something to Horace and
contributes a good deal to Persius. The moral dialogues are more remote
and less immediately cogent; only the manifesto De Clementia appears
seriously to aim at prescribing moral standards and political advice to the
new emperor Nero. If moral impact is to be sought anywhere in the
period, it is to be found most effectively in Virgil’s Georgics and Aeneid,
both ostensibly devoted to quite different objectives, but expressing a
view of man’s position in the universe and relationship to nature which
goes well beyond Augustus’ declared doctrine of restoring the morality
of Roman life.

The overt declarations of poets and prose-writers alike seldom reveal
their true objectives. Horace’s division between the w##i/e and the dulce
(Ars 343) draws attention to the rarity with which it is claimed that
literature exists to give pleasure to the reader — that is, that literature is
virtually an end in itself. This view, already apparent in Catullus, ties in
with the recognition, most explicit in Horace, that literature is for the
elite, a limited number of devotees — for those few who are capable of
appreciating the writer’s artistry in whatever field he chooses to operate.
From this point of view, the moral and erotic themes of Horace, the piety
and patriotism of Virgil, the love-affairs in the elegists, the Stoicism and
republicanism in Lucan, all form the material which the poet exploits to
create different literary masterpieces.

There is a curious conflict concerning the writer’s originality: poets
continually claim to be the first to strike out a particular line, but this
means for the most part a new line in Latin.29 Explicitly or implicitly,
there is always the assumption of accepted conventions within which a
new work must develop, and the concept of imitatio of predecessors is
seldom far away, together with the practice of allusiveness to recall the
reader to the earlier masters, Greek or Latin, who have provided ideas
for the new writer to play with and make his own. This is most evident in
Virgil’s deliberate evocation of (successively) Theocritus, Hesiod and
Homer in his three great works; in Horace’s use for the Odes of both the
early lyricists and the Alexandrians; in the elegists’ open acknowledge-
ment of their debts to Callimachus, Philitas, Euphorion and others,

2% Williams 1968 (A 105) 253~267, with (e.g.) Virg. G. u1.10-12, Hor. Carm. 111.30.13-14.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

924 19. LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

whose influence we should recognize if their works had not been wholly
or mainly lost.2!

Most contentious and debatable here is the role of Cornelius Gallus as
in some sense the founder of the whole Augustan movement. The
discovery in 1978 of a papyrus containing two tetrastichs and fragments
of other lines, clearly belonging to Gallus, has done little to clarify the
nature of his poetry and the limits of his influence on his successors.?? His
influence on the young Virgil especially cannot be doubted, but the
precise part he plays in the sixth and tenth Ec/ogues still defies secure
definition, while the pursuit of themes and phrases from Gallus in
Propertius is a still-growing industry. One feature can be detected, in
accordance with previous expectation: the emphasis on the poet’s own
personality and experience as a major element in his poetry and the
development throughout a book of elegy of the course of a love-affair,
which was to provide an important bridge between the personal poetry
of Catullus (and very likely of other members of his circle) and the
‘subjective love-elegy’ of the Augustans. This autobiographical
tendency in Latin poetry, not necessarily always based on reality, appears
to take its origin in the satires of Lucilius, reporting ‘the whole of life’
according to Horace (Sat. 11.1.32—4); and it developed in Horace’s Satires
and Epistles alongside the similar phenomenon in elegy and to a great
extent in his own Odes. The personal and conversational becomes a
characteristic of the greater part of Augustan poetry, although making
little impact in Virgil.

An important issue here is the recognition that an intimate knowledge
of the poetry of Gallus, and perhaps of other lost poets such as Cinna and
Valerius Cato, could be taken for granted by the Augustan poets; and the
alert reader would pick up many references and echoes which escape us
today. This does not mean that Gallus was regarded as a completely
satisfactory model for aetiological or erotic verse — certainly the
surviving fragments contain usages which were totally rejected by the
next generation. The concept of the master as model seems only to be
fully developed after the climax of the Augustan age, when Virgil’s pre-
eminence is so universally recognized that epic poets feel obliged to
follow him more or less closely, unless they take a positive step, as Lucan
did, in abandoning all of Virgil’s heroic machinery and writing a
fundamentally different sort of historical epic. Horace’s mastery in lyric
poetry, on the other hand, appears virtually to have prevented later poets
from attempting to operate within the genre at all; while Statius’ two
essays in Alcaic and Sapphic in the fourth book of Si/vae (5 and 7) simply

21 Cf. Hubbard 1974 (B 894) 10-11, 70-81.

22 Anderson, Parsons and Nisbet 1979 (B 4); cf. e.g. S. G. Hinds and R. Whitaker Papers of the
Liverpool Latin Seminar 4 (1983) 43-54, 5560; J. Fairbrother, CQ 24 (1984) 167-74.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JUSTIFICATION 925

demonstrate that nothing was left for an imitator to achieve. Whatever
Caesius Bassus composed to deserve respectful comments from Persius
(v1.1) and Quintilian (x.1.96), nota line of his lyrics has survived to show
us whether his achievement was worth anything. However justified
Gallus’ reputation was among the Augustans, at least he never discour-
aged others from pursuing the tradition he had started.

The importance of earlier writers as sources for ideas and allusions of
various sorts was expressly acknowledged in antiquity, as is shown by
Macrobius’ lists in the Saturnalia (especially v.2—22, v1.1-5), which were
probably compiled by critics over several centuries, of Virgilian borrow-
ings from Greek and early Latin poets; although it is not clear how
concerned these critics were to assess the actual effect of some of these
quotations. Modern scholarship has made considerable advances, handi-
capped by the loss of so many works which were evidently available to
Virgil and others, But it has failed to find an altogether satisfactory
explanation of the famous echo in Aeneas’ address to the ghost of Dido,
‘invitus, regina, tuo de litore cessi’ (Aen. v1.460) from Catullus’ burles-
que, ‘invita, o regina, tuo de vertice cessi’ (56.39), which in turn
presumably reflects a line, now lost, in Callimachus’ original poem on the
Lock of Berenice, on which Catullus’ poem was based: it may be that
both come from an unknown predecessor of enough solemnity for
Virgil not to feel that the pathos of his own context might be spoiled by
reminiscences of Catullus’ parody. On the other hand, Virgil strikingly
quotes from his own Georgics to provide animal-similes for the Aeneid,
evidently when he wants to sharpen the reader’s attention and remind
him of elements in the earlier context which have relevance to the later.?4

There seems to be no comment in ancient criticism on the major
Virgilian symbols which play a prominent and continuous part in certain
books of the Aeneid, as the snakes and fire do in ny, if not throughout all;
but the presence and the effect of these symbols can hardly be denied
once they are noticed. The reader’s attention is likewise demanded, if
scholars are right, by the occurrence of key words in Virgil (but also, it
has been suggested, in Persius); and on a much larger scale by
consideration of the overall architecture of the book of Eclogues, of the
four Georgics, of the whole Aeneid, and increasingly complex diagrams
have been produced for the books of the elegiac poets, for Horace’s Odes,
and for almost every other book of Latin poetry.?5 It may be significant
that the greatest of the Augustans have lent themselves remarkably to
the requirements of modern research, so that an endless succession of
doctoral theses and published monographs can be extracted from more

3 See R. G. Austin’s note ad loc, in his edition of Aen. v1 (1977).

* G. B. Townend, in Laurea Corona (1987) 84-8.
% E.g. Oris 1963 (B 135A) 129, 228, etc.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

926 19. LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

and more different ways of analysing language, metre, assonance,
structure, symbolism and so on, suggesting that all these things were
planted by Virgil and the others in their poetry in the expectation that the
more appreciative reader would be equipped to observe them for himself
and to gain the more from the work. There is little evidence, however,
that this sort of awareness was encouraged by the grammaticus or the
literary critic, who were more concerned with correct reading and the
understanding of references, inthe manner of a good nineteenth-century
commentary. It is more credible, though unprovable, that the greatest
artist may admit these elements unconsciously, and that the reader may
equally unconsciously enjoy and value the work all the more on account
of these qualities.

V. THE ACCESSIBILITY OF LITERATURE

The impact of major literature on the great public is hard to assess. The
considerable production of tragedies seems never to have reached the
theatres, the output of Asinius Pollio and Ovid evidently having little
more success than Augustus’ abortive Ajax; the Medea is one of Ovid’s
very few works not to be preserved for posterity (Quint. Inst. x.1.98;
Tac. Dial. 12.6). Seneca’s surviving plays contain elements of descrip-
tions of their action suggesting that they did not need to be seen to be
appreciated, but rather read aloud, perhaps to the accompaniment of
dancing or mime. Mime itself, which under the late Republic retained
some of the literary quality of Herondas and Sophron, still found no
favour with Horace (Sa¢. 1.10.5—6). Under the Empire it came to depend
more and more on the obscene and the spectacular, including real sex and
real crucifixions, until it seems to have merged with pantomime. This
never ranked as literature, despite the libretti derived from Virgil and
Ovid and others specifically written by Lucan and Statius.

The most significant type of public performance becomes the recitatio,
of poetry and prose alike. This seems to have been the regular way of
launching a new work before the publication of an approved text. Only
after such an occasion, and the correction of faults which might have
come to light, would the author make the work available to the public;
and this, in the case of Virgil and Persius, and probably Lucan, might
mean posthumous publication. Subsequent reading might also take the
form of an oral performance, often by specifically trained slaves, to an
individual or a group. In addition, we hear of public performances by
professional cantores, as something quite distinct from Virgil’s own
reading of the Georgics and of three books of the Aeneid to the imperial
household, as well as trials of various passages before a rather wider

26 Kenney in Kenney and Clausen 1982 (B 95) 12.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACCESSIBILITY 927

audience (Suet. Vita Ver. 27, 32-3). Horace in particular (Sat. t.4.73-7)
emphasizes that he never recites his works except to selected friends and
on their express insistence; while others take advantage of the crowds in
the public baths to force their works on all sorts of listeners. The
importance of all these readings will have been greatly increased by the
extent of aural memory enjoyed by a society with far less written material
than the modern world possesses, so that whole passages appear to have
been retained by hearers, with varying degrees of accuracy.27

But apart from the fact that reading, like writing, was almost always
carried out aloud, the general status of reading appears to have borne a
considerable similarity to that of our own day, with bookstalls selling
copies for personal enjoyment and most works available in the great
public libraries, which begin almost exactly with the Augustan age and
expanded rapidly in the following two centuries.4% We still hardly know
the extent of these collections, nor how far the different libraries
duplicated each other. It would appear that readers would normally
consult books inside the libraries, as in the British Library or the
Bodleian. It may have been exceptional, and a matter of privilege, for
Marcus Aurelius in the second century to report to Fronto that he has
taken certain volumes of Cato out of the library of Apollo on the Palatine
and advise him to bribe the librarian of the Tiberian collection to let him
have copies from there.

Some works were evidently produced in fairly large numbers, with
individuals having copies made by their own slaves from a borrowed
text; others probably never merited marketing to any effective extent.
Survival down to the Renaissance is little indication of the availability of
works in antiquity: the fact that Velleius has come down to us largely
complete cannot be proof of wide circulation. On the other hand, there is
reason to suppose that Juvenal made so little impact in his own day that
he survived only because of a surprising popularity in the fourth century,
attested by Ammianus (28.4.14), when there was a sudden demand for
improved texts, enriched with scholia and commenticious biographies
of the author.?9 Gellius provides some interesting stories, not always
plausible, of discovering rare texts in unlikely places (e.g. 1x.4.1,
XVII.9.5); yet Quintilian can recommend for the student’s reading a very
wide range of authors as undistinguished as Rabirius and Albinovanus
Pedo (e.g. x.1.90), who must at least have been available in one or more
of the public libraries. It is a bolder assertion that the libraries in Rome
also contained copies of all the obscure works cited only by Dionysius of

27 Few can have rivalled the elder Seneca, who wrote down extensive passages from declamations
he had listened to. There is no reason to suppose that he made use of shorthand reports, although
both Greek and Latin systems existed by that date.

2% Kenney in Kenney and Clausen 1982 (B 95) 24-5. 7 Highet 1954 (B 84a) 186-7.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

928 I9. LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

Halicarnassus or the elder Pliny. It may well be that these libraries were
such easy victims of deliberate arson in later times of trouble that their
collections would provide relatively few archetypes for transmission,
and that the chances were better for books in private houses. Yet from
Pompeii and Herculaneum together we have recovered only one library,
consisting of Epicurean treatises otherwise lost, and not a single book
from any other house. The element of hazard in the survival of books
was so great that, apart from the evidence of wide circulation, largely
dependent on use in the schools, of a few major writers like Virgil,
Horace and Cicero, no safe conclusion can be drawn about the number of
copies ever made. The total loss of Varius’ poems or the histories of
Cremutius Cordus (officially destroyed but preserved for subsequent
distribution) and of the elder Pliny may indicate either a lack of quality or
an excess of quantity, which made copying impracticable and allowed
most of Livy to survive only in epitomes; but Pliny’s Natural History has
nevertheless survived, and so have the Neronian pastoralists.

The evidence for the familiarity of the great writers outside the
educated elite is very small, almost limited to the few tags written on the
walls of Pompeii, which do not extend far beyond arma virumque and
conticuere omnes (the opening words of the first two books of the Aeneid)
and a variety of odd lines from different parts of the same poem,
evidently employed for writing exercises, from places as remote as
Masada and Vindolanda.» Of specifically popular literature we have
hardly any traces. When Horace wishes to contrast his own supposedly
good taste with that of his down-to-earth slave (Saf. 11.7.95—101), he
chooses painting, not literature, as the field of aesthetic expertise. But
perhaps Davus could not afford books in any case, or could not read, at
least well enough to do so with pleasure. His knowledge of Crispinus’
philosophy he attributes to the oral teaching of Crispinus’ porter. The
press, providing the great majority of people with their main or sole
reading today, was represented by the Acéa, certainly not mass-produced
and hardly likely to have a general appeal.

Where the modern world suggests fiction as the obvious type of
literature to attract a wide public, we hear of little but ‘the Milesian tale’,
suitably bawdy indeed and made available in Latin by Sisenna in the first
half of the second century s.c. The Milesian tradition is certainly
traceable in episodes of Petronius’ Satsricon, such as the tale of the Widow
of Ephesus, and may have played a considerable part in the origin of the
whole of that work, with contributions from the Greek novel, evidently
available to, and perhaps popular with, the large Greek-speaking
element in the population of Rome and other Italian cities. The Satiricon,
even in its mutilated state, is much too complex and sophisticated a work

30 A. K. Bowman and J. D. Thomas, in JR 5 76 (1986) 122, and in Britannia (1987) 125-142 witha
useful list of such quotations and their provenances.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ACCESSIBILITY 929

to have arisen from nothing,3! although, as mentioned above, it fits
awkwardly into the genre of Menippean satire and is totally ignored by
Quintilian, who would have been hard pressed to recommend it for the
training of the young orator, even if he had ever come across a copy of it.
Although the low language and the low subject-matter might well
appeal to a popular readership, a great deal of literary criticism and
similar matter seems to be aimed only at a very limited circle; and the
same is true of the other Menippean satire to survive, the Apocolocyntosis,
patently written for circulation among a select group of readers at a
particular point in time.

We do possess one writer, from the reign of Tiberius, who stands
altogether apart from the fashion and attracted no attention from literary
critics, although he may have been considerably more popular and widely
read than many more imposing poets. Phaedrus was an imperial
freedman, who was at one time involved in trouble with Sejanus. He
versified a large number of supposedly Aesopian fables, adding some of
his own, including a few on distinctively Romancontemporary topics. He
is no master, but writes engagingly and unpretentiously, arousing the
question as to how unusual his writing was in an age of great
sophistication, and how far he was writing for a distinct level of reader.
With his simple language and metre and his improving morals, he appears
to be aiming at the younger pupils of the grammaticus;, and these qualities
probably contributed to his survival into the modern world. The fables
would certainly have greater appeal to an elementary reader than the
Twelve Tables of early law which at one time seem to have served this
purpose; but we have no direct evidence of Phaedrus’ use in the schools.

What is most striking in the Roman world is the lack of any basic text
which was read by any who could read and listened to regularly by all, as
the English bible was for at least 300 years, providing a common focus of
language and knowledge. Toa certain extent Homer had filled this place
in some Greek cities at least in the classical period and probably later;
although his language was far removed from colloquial Greek even in
the fifth century B.c. and his very bulk made him difficult to assimilate.
Virgil could make some claims to have become the bible of Rome,
almost as soon as the Aeneid appeared; but the occasions of hearing him
read cannot have been frequent, and an influence on Roman life which
might have been a major force on the side of humanity and peace was
never allowed to become really widespread. It is hard to imagine that any
other writer of the period, even Horace or Seneca, can have had even that
slight chance of exercising serious influence on the society to which they
belonged.

31 P. Parsons, in BICS 18 (1971) 53-66, sees some parallel to the Satiricon in a Greek papyrus,

probably of the second century a.D. (POxy. 3010), suggesting the existence of a picaresque narrative
tradition in Greek on which Petronius may have drawn.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 20

ROMAN ART, 43 B.c. TO A.D. 69

MARIO TORELLI

I. THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF AUGUSTAN CLASSICISM

In the history of ancient art few changes are so dramatically apparent as
that which unfolded, gradually yet unmistakably, during the first two
decades of the reign of Augustus. This change came about under the
banner of a Classicism inspired by the great Attic examples of the fifth
and fourth centuries B.c. The origins of this Classicism were, however,
remote. In the architectural and art-historical context of late republican
‘Asiatic luxury’ (/axuria Asiatica), both the Classical models, which were
already present in the Hellenistic culture inspiring that /axuria, and the
genuinely baroque practices, which were peculiar to middle and late
Hellenistic art, had been enthusiastically welcomed by Roman patrons of
the ruling class.! But in the Augustan and Julio-Claudian age, Classicism
became an official artistic programme and one unique to the capital,” and
from this centre emanated the models adopted by greater and lesser
private patrons, as well as by Italian and provincial municipalities,
especially in the West. Both taste and knowledge were so deeply affected
that the history of Roman imperial art can to a large extent be seen as a
series of variations on and interpretations of the Classicizing message.
In the age of Caesar, official architecture, sculpture and painting were
still deeply imbued with a baroque and Hellenistic dramatic force, but
they also recalled the distant experiences of the artistic culture common
to the Etruscan and Italic world (the £oine) of the third century B.c. This
is especially discernable in the formal duality of the portrait. In portrait
sculpture, an art deeply imbued with local ideology, the spare, incisive,
‘realistic’ aspects of the Italian portrait in fact co-existed with the
distinctly psychological features, full of pathos, of the late-Hellenistic
portrait. The point can be made quite simply by comparing the basic,

' F. Coarelli, D Arch 2 (1968) 302ff; id. DArch 4-5 (1970-1) 241ff: id. St. Miscell. 15 (1970) 85 ff; éd.
in Zanker 1976 (E 141) 21ff; id. in L’art décoratif a Rome (Rome, 1981) 229ff.

? Zanker 1988 (F 63 3); Simon 1987 (F 577); Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik 1988 (F 443),
the catalogue of an exhibition at Berlin.

930

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTAN CLASSICISM 931

linear countenances of the ‘Arringatore’ (The Orator, ¢. 100 B.c.)3 and of
Caesar (¢. 50 B.c.)* on the one hand, with the soft, shaded features of the
so-called Postumius Albinus (convincingly identified as Cato the Cen-
sor, ¢. 150 B.C.) and of Pompey (¢. 6o B.c.) on the other.> The two formal
approaches continued to co-exist in the second half of the first century
B.C., but the ‘Italic’ modes tended increasingly to denote municipality or
provincial patronage, and they spread eventually to the lowest social and
cultural levels of so-called ‘plebeian art’. We shall return to this later.

In the official art of the court and the great aristocracy of Rome, the
moment of transition from this ambiguous coexistence of ‘Italic’ with
late Hellenistic forms to the decisive selection of Classicism may be
situated in a brief period of political and cultural settlement, that is, in the
decade which followed the constitutional change of the year 27 B.c.
Shortly before that date, characteristic late republican tendencies are still
clearly in play. Portrait sculpture continues to produce masterpieces
with a flavour of Hellenistic dynasticism, such as the ‘Actium’-type
portrait of Octavian’ or the ‘Gabii’-type of Agrippa.’ Decorative
painting continues to develop the long established themes of the Second
Style, with its characteristic ‘open walls’ and wide scenic perspectives,®
while public and private architecture operate within the framework of
models developed between the end of the second and the middle of the
first century B.c.? The last decade of the first century was, however,
already dominated by the Classicizing language of the Augustan
regime.!° The ‘Prima Porta’-type portrait of Augustus embodies the
propaganda message of the new convictions of the Principate.!! In
painting, plain, undisturbed tapestries, across which run slender cande-
labras and minute friezes in the Third Style, support reproductions of the
great Classical Greek panel paintings;!2 while architecture and architec-
tural ornamentation in marble and stucco echo — in the context of
consolidated building types — the Attic, or at least Classical, models of
the fifth and fourth centuries B.c.13 By now imperial Roman Classicism is
completely formed and functioning.

As we have seen, the new style was not in fact entirely new: behind it

3 T. Dohm, Der Arringatore (Berlin 1968); M. Cristofani, Bronzi Etruschi 1. La plastica votiva
(Novara, 1985) no. 129.

* F. Johansen, Ancient Portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum 1 (Malibu, 1987) 24ff.

5 L. Giuliani, Bildnis und Botschaft (Frankfurt am Main, 1986). § Zanker 1973 (FP 627).

7 M. Hofter, in Kaiser Augustus 1988 (F 443) no. 150, pp. 313f.

8 The documentation is splendidly collected by Beyen 1938-60 (F 271). The highest urban level is
that of the House of Augustus: Carettoni 1983 (F 316); also Barbet 1985 (P 262).

9 P. Gros, G. Sauron, in Kaiser Augustus 1988 (F 443) 48f. F. Coarelli, sbid (1988 (P 443)) 68ff.

10M. Torelli, Index 13 (1983) 589ff. 41 Vierneisel and Zanker 1979 (PF 605).

12 Bastet and de Vos 1979 (F 265).

13, Kaiser Augustus 1988 (PF 443) passim, reviews the decoration of the principal Augustan
monuments at Rome.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

932 20. ROMAN ART, 43 B.C. TO A.D. 69

lay over 150 years of history. A work like the pediment in Via San
Gregorio! sufficiently conveys with its decidedly classicizing character
the antiquity of neoclassical experience in the city, under the stimulus of
the strong classicizing element in the late Hellenism of Pergamum and
Athens. What was new was the pervasive, all-embracing aspect of
Classical forms, which freed buildings and their decoration, official
sculptures, and urban planning from all that unrestrained baroque
freedom (/icentia) which came from the effrontery (audacia) of the
Alexandrians. New also was the nostalgic recovery of a Roman and
Italian national past onto which was grafted the formal, Classicizing
message; and new too was the general and enthusiastic support of the
Roman aristocracy and of the local magnates of Italy, the domi nobiles, for
the unique programme developed in the capital. Baroque, Hellenistic
experiences were thus pushed to the side, to be looked for in the narrow
confines of private consumption of art, in silverware and fine pottery,
and in the minor genre paintings, landscapes and still lifes, which were
placed side by side with copies of classical or great classicizing paintings
in the Arcadian gardens of urban villas.

Consistently with the assumptions of the Augustan programme for
restoration, all these non-Classicizing forms were assigned to the
representation of idylls and escapes, trifles (nugae) and erotic themes, that
is, modes and fashions outside of reality, pseudo-messages void of
content. But the very limiting of private and public /uxsria imposed by
the policy of the princeps ended by incorporating such developments,
however devalued of meaning they may have been, so that often the
Classicizing idiom, which tended to eliminate such risky departures from
the austere and ubiquitous realm of official ideology, came to the surface
even in the private consumption of art.

The ban on baroque language was accompanied by censure of any
element that did not conform to the central plan of moral restoration.
Once the military triumphs of the nobilitas were done away with (to be
reserved for the princeps and his family), the great public building activity
which had been financed by the generals’ spoils of war (ex manubiis) came
also to an end, along with all the dynastic ideology which it had carried in
the last century of the Republic. The grandiloquent decorative pro-
grammes, both public and private, which had been aimed at individual
glorification — using Hellenistic forms of self-representation — gave way
in the public arena to imperial initiative alone, and in private to less
compromising ‘galleries’ populated by the images of philosophers, or

'4 This pediment, like others of the second century B.c. (Rome, in the Via Latina; Luni; Volterra,
etc.) needs reconsideration. See meanwhile, M. J. Strazzulla in M. Martelli, M. Cristofani, eds., 1
caratteri delPellenismo nelle urne etrusche (Florence, 1977) 41ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTAN CLASSICISM 933

athletes or of gods, where ofium (leisure) either had exclusively intellec-
tual connotations or merely expressed a desire for escape.

This profound ‘renewal’, then, had its programmatic foundations in
the ideology of the state. That was carefully fashioned by the great
intellectuals within the circle of the princeps, from a singular mixture of
Classicizing ideals, which were developed from the ‘inimitable models’
of the Greeks, and of national, Romano-Italian traditions, which were
organized within the framework of a revival of Archaizing customs and
native memories. The new figurative culture constituted a formidable
vehicle for the propagation of the religious, political and symbolic
elements of this revival in the most remote municipalities of Italy and
among the lowest levels of society.

The instrument for the remarkable diffusion of this programme was
above all a favoured group of sculptors in marble and bronze of the neo-
Attic school. These men had already become established in Italy during
the late Republic, working in Rome or Campania in a number of
workshops, and controlled either directly or indirectly by such Roman
aristocrats as Junius Damasippus, the Cossutii, or the notorious Gaius
Verres. First among these workshops in both organization and quality
was that directed by Pasiteles, who was head of a school which was well
known for at least three generations.!5 There were, moreover, a large
number of lesser, anonymous stone-cutters as well as legions of fresco-
painters, also anonymous, to whom the whole of Italy, from the princeps
to the humblest municeps, entrusted the decoration of their houses. Along
with the even humbler crafters of small-scale work in metal and
terracotta, these sculptors revived and developed Classical and Hellenis-
tic models in the new spirit, operating within a capillary-like network of
workshops, each with its own rules of apprenticeship and instruction,
and within a no less capillary circulation of moulds, casts and clay models
(proplasmata). Thanks to new discoveries, we now know far more about
these than was revealed to us by the well-known anecdote about the
plaster models used by Pasiteles.'6

Thus the vein of formal inspiration began in a transplantation of neo-
Attic craftsmen into a Roman environment which dates back to the
middle of the second century B.c., with the activity of the school of

'S On these ateliers, in addition to works cited in n. 1, see G. Becatti, 7 (1940) 7ff; M. Torelli,
MAAR 36 (1980) 3136; id. Scienze del? Antichita 2 (1988) 403ff.

16 Clay proplesmata intended to serve as models for moulds for bronze sculptures have been
discovered by M. A. Tomei (Archeolegia laziale 7 (1987) 73f, fig. 6) in the excavation of the Domus
Tiberiana. These may be set beside the fragments of plaster casts of the Tyrannicides of Critios and
Nesiotes discovered at Baize with the well-known copy of the Sosandra (C. Landwehr, Die antiken
Gipsabgiisse aus Baiae (198 5)), in order to show the very close link between imperial residences and
artisan activity in the replication and collage of works of art.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

934 20. ROMAN ART, 43 B.C. TO A.D. 69

Timarchides, and it must have been re-invigorated under Augustus,
thanks to the pax Augusta and the gradual extension of imperial
monopoly over marble quarries. The very concentration of refined
sculptors’ studios around the palace, to which discoveries at the Domus
Tiberiana on the Palatine and at Baiae bear witness, must have encour-
aged both centralization in the development of models and the creation
of schools and workshops far more stable than those which had existed
in the past, and thus the formation of an artistic tradition less sporadic
and occasional than that of the late Republic. The proof of this is to some
extent also offered by the solid fabric of Classicizing style which
developed in the age of Augustus and which essentially continued into
the reign of Domitian, when there probably occurred a new influx of
artists and craftsmen from the eastern Mediterranean, in the wake of the
pharaonic building programmes undertaken by that emperor.!7

II. THE CREATION OF THE AUGUSTAN MODEL

The death of Julius Caesar put a sudden end to the grandiose projects of
urban transformation cherished by the dictator.!8 It would fall to
Octavian Augustus to resume, especially after Actium, the plans of his
adoptive father, whose purpose it had been to imprint the Julian name
(nomen Iulium) on the imperial capital. The first steps of the young princeps
were informed by the same dynastic conception that had characterized
Pompey’s works in the Campus Martius and Caesar’s own designs.
Typical of this is the choice of model for his own mausoleum, possibly
begun in 27 B.c., which recalls that of the tomb of Alexander;!9 while
both the public and the private activities of his appointed successor,
Agrippa, between the Campus Martius and the right bank of the Tiber,
carried out in the years from 33 to 19 B.C., were certainly inspired by
great Ptolemaic models. This can especially be seen if we consider the
close link between Agrippa’s urban villa across the Tiber (trans Tiberim)
— most likely the so-called Casa della Farnesina — and the stagnum (pool)
and the Euripus (canal) located at the edge of the complex made up by the
Pantheon, saepta (voting enclosure), baths, campus Agrippae and porticus
Vipsaniae, all completed or planned by him.2° This foreshadows the
similar egyptianizing effects which Hadrian would recreate a century and

‘7 Workshops were formed in the age of Domitian to respond to the demands of his colossal
building programme, a phenomenon still little investigated (and responsible for the improbable
Domitianic chronologies sometimes attributed to such works as the great Trajanic frieze). See the
preliminary remarks of M. Torelli, in L’Urhs — Espace urbain et histoire 1987 (a 96) 5 76ff.

8 On these projects and Caesarian town planning in general: Gros and Torelli 1988 (a 41) 117ff
and 167ff, H. v. Hesberg, in Kaiser Augustus 1988 (F 443) 93ff.

19H. von Hesberg, in Kasser Augustus 1988 (F 443) 121ff.

2 F. Coarelli, MEFRA 89 (1977) 816ff; td. in Katser Augustus 1988 (F 443) 71ff; Roddaz 1984 (c
200) 23 1ff (with useful bibliography).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AUGUSTAN MODEL 935

a half later in his villa at Tivoli, with its evocative coupling of baths and
Canopus; but it recalls above all the model of urban organization offered
by Alexandria and repeated by the Augustan plan of regiones and vici. The
tradition of the viri triumphales of the late Republic was also revived by
Augustus with the theatre dedicated to his first heir Marcellus (23 B.C.)
and with the restoration of the temple of Apollo én Circo attached to that
theatre, thanks to which he was able to reinforce the Apollinian
propaganda, launched after Actium, with a more traditional reference to
the memory of the nomen Iulium which was associated with the first
dedicator of the temple, Cn. Iulius (consul in 431 B.c.).2! The construc-
tion of the temple of Palatine Apollo (36-28 B.c.) next to his house bore
the same dynastic imprint. Watched over by the Magna Mater (an
obvious symbol of the Trojan origins of both his gens and of Rome), and
by his personal god, the prophet Apollo (who had been a reliable guide
during the clash at Actium), the house evokes the model of the palaces of
Hellenistic kings, which were likewise protected by the great personal
deities of the basileus. And another reminder of Egypt is offered by the
solarium, the colossal sundial centred on the obe/iscus Augusti, which he
laid out on the extreme northern boundary of his city, a most unusual
horologium set as it were in a gigantic garden (10 B.c.).23

In his other opera triumphalis, the Forum of Augustus,?4 which he
vowed in 42 and inaugurated in 2 B.c., he follows yet again in Caesar’s
footsteps. On the pediment of the temple of Mars Ultor (Mars the
Avenger), at the end of the Forum, Caesar’s divine ancestress Venus
Genetrix stood side by side with Augustus’ Mars Ultor: a sacred
marriage which was to be interpreted in a dynastic sense. To this
Augustus added statues representing his own ancestors, mythical and
historical, on one side of the Forum, and these faced a Romulean
procession of the great men, the summi viri, of the city’s history, on the
other side. The gens of the new Aeneas and the new Romulus thus
recapitulated the historical fortunes of Rome, a theme which was, as we
shall see, developed in the Ara Pacis and which well displays the
substance of the ideology of the Augustan Principate: the princeps, and he
alone, had the right to mix or to juxtapose the public with the private.
And indeed, in 19 B.c., Cornelius Balbus was the last triumphing general
able to erect an edifice from his spoils, the sheatrum with the crypta Balbi;
after him there would be no more triumphs, save for those enjoyed by
the emperor or his family, and consequently monuments would no
longer be erected to celebrate the personal glories of the Roman
aristocracy.

21 E, La Rocca, in Kaiser Augustus 1988 (F 443) 121ff, A. Viscogliosi, sbid. 136ff.
2 G. Carettoni, ibid. 263ff. 23 E. Buchner, shid. 240ff.
%* Jj. Ganzert, V. Kockel, ibid. 149ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

936 20. ROMAN ART, 43 B.C. TO A.D. 69

We may safely assert that, even if some works were completed a little
later, in the course of the penultimate decade of the century the most
complex and daring initiatives in architecture and urban planning of the
Augustan period came to an end. Nevertheless, even where he did not
erect new buildings or where the ideological interweaving of past and
present was more subtle, Augustus imposed through his programme a
new coherence on buildings which already existed, restoring a few — in
his Res Gestae he claims to have restored eighty temples! — or adding
some others, so as to compose a unified ideological design whose aim
was the customary glorification of his own role as princeps. This is
apparent above all in the old Forum Romanum. Here the reconstruction
of the main temples and public buildings — the temples of Castor and
Pollux, of Saturn, and of Concordia, the basilicas, the Curia, and the regia
— have the evident objective of imposing the nomen Iulium as extensively
as possible on the most majestic urban complex of the city, while at the
same time ‘re-employing’ all the venerable buildings within the context
of his personal propaganda. Thus new messages were skilfully juxta-
posed with or superimposed on ancient ones: his wife Livia was paired
with Concord (A.D. 6); his grandsons the principes inventutis were joined
with Castor and Pollux (a.p. 7). But a quite different and crucial role was
played by a few additions to the Forum which were statements of
Augustan policy, that is, by the dynastic temple of the Divine Julius —
which was set between two triumphal arches of Augustus, the one
celebrating his victory at Actium (29 B.c., later tactfully transformed into
a Dalmatian arch), the other his Parthian success (19 B.c.) — and by the
Portico of Gaius and Lucius (A.D. 2). These monuments very elegantly
exclude ‘undesirable’ buildings from the open space, undesirable either
because they were associated with other aristocratic families, or because
they could not be integrated into the new, Augustan ideological system:
for example, the basilica Aemilia on the one hand, the regia and the aedes
Vestae, which were replaced in the conception of the princeps by his
residence on the Palatine, on the other.?5

Although beset with continuous crises over the succession, the years
of the consolidation of power were consistently devoted to these
exercises in sophisticated urban ‘inlay’, which in fact destroyed or
radically transformed earlier meanings as surely as his settlement of the
constitution. But these years were also devoted to the reorganization of
the administrative structure and functioning of the city, one similar to
and as necessary as that enforced by Agrippa in his cura aquarum. In
addition to their use in the collection of customs and the control of
public order, the ancient, fourth-century city walls came again to mark

25 Coarelli 1985 (2 19) m 211ff; with Gros 1976 (F 397).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AUGUSTAN MODEL 937

the boundary between city and country through the systematic resto-
ration of all the city gates (between A.D. 2 and 10), thus reaffirming the
powerful symbolic value of both wall and gates which was to find a very
special echo in the architecture and town planning of the Augustan cities
of Italy and Gaul. In the years 8 and 7 B.c., the banks of the Tiber were set
in order, the night watch (the cobortes vigilum) was established, and the
city and the continentia tecta (the inhabited parts of the city and suburb)
were divided into fourteen regions: together these completed in the
organizational sphere the readjustment which Augustus had already
begun between 12 and 7 B.c. in the religious sphere, with the institution
of his personal cult in the sites of the compita, the shrines of the urban
crossroads.76

In his Res Gestae Augustus placed great emphasis on his personal
benefactions in the development of the city. Despite the customary
official phrasing of the document, he goes far beyond the accepted
practice of normal e/ogia and commentarii, not only in the boundless
immensity of his achievements, but especially in the emphasis on the
intensely urban character of his efforts, which did remain until the time
of Domitian the grandest and most comprehensive in the history of the
city: ‘a city whose magnificence was not equal to the majesty of her
empire, and which was exposed to floods and fires, he so improved that
he might rightly boast that he left a city of marble which he had received
made of brick’ (Suet. Axg. 28). It is surprising then that the architectural
expression of such a project should be essentially very limited and
conventional. The great piazzas enclosed with porticoes and with
temples at the end or in the centre, such as the Forum of Augustus and
the porticus Liviae (A.D. 7), or open with temple at the centre of porticoes
on three sides, as in the temple of Apollo Palatinus and perhaps in the
Pantheon, are the most common elements of the Augustan contribution
to the city. Perhaps its most novel and experimental aspect remains the
work of Agrippa in the Campus Martius, with its intentional confusion
of public and private, of dwellings, public parks, recreational spaces,
boulevards and reflecting pools, a confusion which would reappear
explicitly only in Nero’s grand creation of ‘private’ buildings with
strong dynastic connotations, from his villa at Subiaco to his Golden
House. The Alexandrian model — which would then spread in private
life, from the architecture of tombs to the Egyptian imagery of the late
Second and Third Styles — is not merely mannerist exoticism, compar-
able to the chinoiseries of eighteenth-century Europe. It is also a
recognition of the deep affinity between the realities of life at Alexandria
and at Rome, both social and cultural, and at the same time of their

2% F, Coarelli, in Kaiser Augustus 1988 (F 443) 75 ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

938 20. ROMAN ART, 43 B.C. TO A.D. 69

correspondingly deep diversity, which leads to the longing for, and the
privatisation of, the models derived from that particular variant of
Hellenism.

On the other hand, the programme of restoration required that the
convictions of ‘western’ and ‘national’ values be defended, consolidated
and reasserted within the framework of a pervasive piefas. Thus can we
account for the systematic use of conventional architectural forms —
temples on a podium at the end of a porticoed square — which had been
the patrimony of Roman culture for over a century and a half, and which
were now stripped of the late Hellenistic effronteries to be found in the
great Latin and Campanian buildings between 120 and 50 B.c., and
clothed again in neo-Attic forms. From the sculptor Diogenes, who was
responsible for the decoration of the first Pantheon, to the extremely
skilful stone-cutters, who created the elegant architectural partitions for
the many sacred and public buildings ordered by Augustus, it was
Athenian craftsmen who were the leaders in the neoclassical ‘purifica-
tion’ of architectural decoration.

The dominant models are, as in all art forms, those of high Classicism,
with a special and understandable predilection for the prototypes of
Periclean Athens. The caryatids of the Attic neoclassicist Diogenes are
not preserved for us, although we may suspect a Classicizing sculpture,
caryatids of the Cherchell-Tralles or Venice-Mantua type.2’ But very
clearly intended to evoke religious and revivalist memories are the
copies of the £orai from the portico of the Erechtheum in Athens, which
were introduced into the upper storey of the Forum of Augustus and
recopied in its replica at Emerita (Mérida, in Spain): these maidens, who
are better understood in their role as Aanephoroi (basket-carriers),
encircled the shrines (beroa) of the sammi viri and of the nomen Iulium, just
as those at Athens are there to honour the tomb of the first king of Attica.
All these architectural forms, from the mouldings of the temple podia to
the Classical capitals, are crafted in a refined manner based on sharp and
subtle lines, on a few projections from the representational plan which
give a ‘stiacciato’ effect (that is, one of very low, flat surfaces) and on
clear, undisturbed surfaces. The need for convictions, implicit in the
search for the ideological models of Classicism, both shared and secure,
asserts itself even in style, a style straining to evoke formal clarities and
absolute definitions.

As to private architecture, innovations had already appeared in the
culture of the late Republic, and the Augustan age added little to what
had already been developed, other than its own neo-classical taste in
decoration. Large mosaic pavements in black and white, walls painted in

27 Documentation in E. Schmidt, Ant. Plastik 13 (1973); id. Geschichte der Karyatide (Wurzburg,
1982).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AUGUSTAN MODEL 939

the Third Style, plain smp/uvia, and symmetric peristyles: these are the
main contribution of an age concerned with returning to normal all that
was bizarre or baroque in the domestic architecture of the late
Republic.28 Much broader was the spectrum of funerary typology, which
reflects better than any other aspect of the culture the fundamental
stratification of society, the ambitions of social ascent, the unifying force
of the principles of the court in artistic culture.29 Columbaria (tombs with
niches for funerary urns) begin to proliferate to meet the needs of the less
affluent social classes, while the late republican model of the naiskos, or
shrine, was replaced in the preferences of the middle and upper classes of
society by the tomb set on a tall, austere, archaizing cylinder: the most
celebrated examples of this are the tomb of Caecilia Metella at Rome and
that of Munatius Plancus at Gaeta, and that colossal exemplum, the
mausoleum of Augustus. This taste for the exotic also provides a chance
to indulge in such oddities as egyptianizing tombs in the form of
pyramids. Above all the link — one derived from the practices of
Hellenistic dynasts ~ between tombs and suburban estates, gardens or
villas, grew even stronger than it had been, showing that these pyramids
were not oddities, but that they too are to be included within the
framework, already noted, of the ‘bourgeoisification’ of the royal
cultural models of late Hellenism, a process increasingly evident as one
penetrates the maze of private culture.

Naturally all this exists in delicate balance with the classicizing
tradition, even in sculpture in the round. The programme of sculptural
decoration of the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum™ may have been
due (as appears more likely) to a great intellectual of the Caesarian age
such as L. Ateius Praetextatus, working for the patrician Claudii Pulchri,
or (as some prefer) it may have been created a little later for the Calpurnii
Pisones. Either way, it draws from a vast range of sculptural traditions in
order to realize an articulated representation of the ideology and the
ethical models of the leaders of society in the years of the civil wars. The
classicizing formulae, which reach their peak in the ideal coupling of the
Doryphorus/Achilles of Polyclitus with the Amazon/Penthesilea of
Phidias, pass from the prototypes of the high fifth century B.c. through
the late-classical —- Lysippus’ Hermes in Repose comes to mind — to end
with the Hellenistic, found in garden sculpture. The choice of the
prototype to be copied, developed and re-echoed is directly linked to the

% There is no standard work on Augustan domestic architecture and the relationship between it
and painted, marble and stucco decoration. See in the meantime D’Arms 1970 (£ 30); P. Zanker,
JDAI 94 (1979) 460ff; Mielsch 1987 (F 502); Neudecker 1987 (F 513). Most interesting are the
remarks of Leach 1982 (F 465).

29 Eisner 1986 (PF 357); von Hesberg and Zanker 1987 (F 418).

3M. R. Wojcik, Anz. Fac. Lett. Filos. Perugia 16{17 (1978/79-1979/80) 359; amplified in La villa
dei Papiri ad Ercolano (Rome, 1986).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

940 20. ROMAN ART, 43 B.C. TO A.D. 69

type of message which was intended: loftier and richer in ethical or
political content, for sculptures copied from the Classical; lighter, more
idyllic and epigrammatic, for works drawn from the Hellenistic reper-
tory. Naturally in the public part of the house forms and messages are of
a higher, Classicizing tone, while in the private area devoted to leisure
the prevailing models are Hellenistic or at least escapist. The boundaries
between these two levels are obviously very fluid, especially in houses, a
fact which encouraged the mixing of genres and idioms in sculpture as
well as in the other figurative arts.

The leading patrons called on the expertise of the neo-Attic masters,
whom they bound to themselves as freedmen clients, as the above-
mentioned case of the Cossutii shows. Already extensive under the late
Republic, production expanded even further in order to furnish the
town houses, country villas and suburban estates of the Roman aristoc-
racy and the domi nobiles of Italy with candelabras, tables, seats, and
neoclassical and archaizing reliefs. These too express in concrete form
the same atmosphere of idyll and escape which pervades architecture and
painting. But to the same craftsmen and the same workshops are owed
the last creations of Hellenistic culture on Italian soil, such as the Athlete
of Stephanos, one of the masters of the school of Pasiteles, and above all
the copies — either in bronze, with the technique of moulds and of clay
models, or in marble, with the technique based on the pointing process —
of great Classical originals: these are the key to the decoration of public
and private buildings, with all the weight of traditional meanings or of
meanings symbolically revived within the Roman context.%2

Because of their talent for copying, these craftsmen had to contend
with a series of operations of ‘assembly’ and ‘disassembly’ of their own
creations. Particularly significant is the operation undergone by the
‘Cavaspina’, an epigrammatic sculpture which was certainly well known
and is late Hellenistic in conception, as can be seen in the copy in
London: all the same, in the bronze copy at Rome its head echoes the
severe style.33 The technical ability to reproduce sculpture relatively
easily, when joined with a widespread ‘culture of artistic canons’
(modelled on that of literary canons), forged the opportunity fora whole
series of formal tropes: archaistic heads on Classicizing torsoes, or
Hellenistic draperies on naked limbs in a Classical manner, are to be read

31 See the partial collections of K. Fuchs, Die Vorbilder der neuattischen Reliefs (Tubingen, 1953)
and H. V. Cain, Rémrische Marmorkandelaber (Mainz, 1985). Still worth consulting are the pages of E.
Pemice, Die Hellenistische Kunst in Pompeji 1v—vi (Berlin, 1925-38), with J. Marcadé, Aw Musée de
Délos. Etude sur la sculpture bellenistique en ronde-bosse décoswverte dans ile (Paris, 1969). On sculpture in
general: N. Himmelmann, Uber Hirten - Genre in der antiken Kunst (Opladen, 1980), and H. P.
Laubscher, Fischer und Landleute (Mainz, 1982).

32 Zanker 1974 (F 628); Bieber 1977 (F 283); Martin 1987 (F 495); éd. in Katser Augustus 1988 (F 443)
251ff, 343 ff. 33 Zanker 1974 (F 628) 81ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AUGUSTAN MODEL 941

as stylistic metaphors and transpositions meant to express variationes,
rhetorical e/egantiae which do not impair the content. In reality, as it is
easy to see in Cicero’s superficial remarks in commissioning the
decoration for his Tusculan villa, this new attitude prefigured that
complete devaluation of the messages of the originals which would
become typical from the later Julio-Claudian period. In that era copies of
great Classical originals, such as the Mantua-type of Phidias’ Apollo, are
turned into banal lampstands in the townhouses of the Pompeian
bourgeoisie, or reversed copies can be discovered facing each other to
frame a doorway, as was the fate of the Pothos attributed to Scopas.
From earlier symbolic ‘translations’ of their original content, the better
to adapt it to the needs of the high Roman aristocracy, it is an
imperceptible slide into pastiche and kitsch, a transformation which is
also to be blamed on the gradual loss of coherence of formal values. The
growing indifference to organic unity and stylistic coherence prefigures
the indifference to content which would represent (with the exception of
the great imperial complexes) the doctrine dominating decorations in the
high empire.

However, the neo-Attic workshops had an even greater task than that
of copying for public and private furnishings: this was to work out a
sculpture in the round and in relief to exalt the virtus and the pietas of the
princeps, to embody in another language the dynastic ambitions of
Augustus and the climate of restoration of national values connected
with them. Hence the aforementioned (and completely Hellenistic)
concentration around the palace of intense activity in copying and
development of the severe, Classical and late-Classical styles with models
of terracotta or plaster, which were found at the Domus Tiberiana in
Rome and the imperial complex at Baiae.35 The Augustan programme
called for the suppression of the highly visible phenomenon of self-
glorification by aristocratic generals in favour of the restoration of mos,
custom, and of the different degrees of dignity to which the typology of
the statues was correlated. Thus, at the beginning of the Augustan age,
Agrippa could still celebrate his own naval victories with an heroic
statue inspired by images of Poseidon;** and this could be echoed,
among the domi nobiles, by the heroic statue of the Ostian duumvir
Cartilius Poplicola, commemorating 4is naval achievements, which were
also extolled on the frieze of his sepulchre.3? But the subsequent
reduction of military and governing functions by the senatorial aristoc-
racy favoured a rapid return to mos. Each function entailed a distinct type
of portrait statue: sfatuae augurales and pontificales (capite velato, with lituus

# Cic. Fam. vit.23; Att. 1.4.35 §.7; 6.2; 7; 8.2; 9.2; 10.35 11.3. 35 Cf. n. 16 above.
% G. Traversari, Museo Archeologico di Venezia t. I ritratti (Rome, 1986) 29, no. 13.
37 Zevi 1976 (£ 142) 56ff, fig. 13.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

942 20. ROMAN ART, 43 B.C. TO A.D. 69

and sacrificial patera) to commemorate priests; triumphales (with Jorica,
toga picta, hasta) for recipients of triumphal honours; /oricatae (with /orica)
for military officers; consulares (with toga and rotult) for consuls; equestres
(with tunica and paludamentum) and sella curuli sedentes® for those govern-
ing with :wperium military and civilian provinces, respectively.3? Peri-
pheral regions conformed relatively quickly to the urban model: the
honours granted by the Cretans and the Herculaneans to Nonius
Balbus® still reflect late-republican practices in the number and even the
forms of the statues dedicated to him, but we soon meet the cuirassed
statue of M. Holconius Rufus which celebrates, according to its
appearance, his military tribunate a populo,*! while such precious docu-
ments as the Barberini sogatus illustrate both senatorial reassertion of the
ins imaginum (the right to display the death-masks of ancestors who had
held public office) and the power of the model of traditional political
representation imposed by Augustus.*?

Neither the princeps himself nor his family failed to observe these
norms. Famous statues, such as that from the Via Labicana, depicting
Augustus as pontifex maximus, or that recently discovered in the
Euboean Sea,* reflecting his smperium proconsulare maius and his ius gladii,
fit perfectly into the typology respectively of statuae pontificales and statuae
equestres. But the profound sense of Augustan mystification is best felt in
the most famous statue of the princeps, the Augustus of Prima Porta.4
Probably intended as a statua triumphalis in connexion with the honores of
the Parthian Arch, it celebrates through the figures on the cuirass deeds
worthy of a triumph (res trinmphi dignae), the return of the Parthian
standards, an event which Augustus, with his accustomed skill, did not
wish to be celebrated with a triumph. At the same time the statue
presents a princeps uncharacteristically barefoot, in a heroic pose which is
emphasized by the ‘quotation’ of Polyclitan ponderatio. Here as else-
where, the transgression of mos, is confirmed by apparent reafiirmations
of that very wos combined with marginal departures drawn from the
tradition of Hellenistic monarchy. The creation of Augustus’ official

38 That is: augural and pontifical statues, head covered and with curved staff and sacrificial bow};
triumphal statues, with cuirass, embroidered toga, and spear; cuirassed statues; consular statues,
with toga and scrolls; equestrian statues, with tunic and military cloak; and statues of magistrates
sitting in chairs of office. For these concepts: M. Torelli, in A. M. Vaccaro and A. M. Sommella
(eds.), Marco Aurelio. Storia di un monumento e del suo restauro (Milan, 1989) 83-102.

39 As is shown beyond doubt in the series of statues granted to L. Volusius Saturninus (cos. 3
B.C.) in connexion with the bonores he had received. See most recently S. Panciera, in I Volusii
Saturnini — Una famiglia romana della prima eta imperiale (Bari, 1982) 83ff.

4“ See most recently S. Adamo Muscettola, Prospettiva 28 (1982) 2ff; for the inscriptions, L.
Schumacher, Chiron 6 (1976) 165ff. 4 Zanker 1988 (F 633) 331, fig. 259.

42 M. Torelli, Index 13 (1985) 589ff, with P. Zanker, Wiss. Zeitschr. der Humboldt Univ. Berlin 31
(1982) 307ff; id. 1983 (F 631) 2518.

“3 M. Hofter, in Kaiser Augustus 1988 (F 443) no. 168, p. 323f; and E. Touloupa, ibid. no. 149,
gurl. “4 See above, n. 7.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AUGUSTAN MODEL 943

portrait and the parallel evolution of private portraiture in the second
half of the first century B.c. take us over the same route. Portraits of the
La Alcudia-type and the Actium-type, such as that of Agrippa, still
follow the tradition of dynastic portraiture which flourished in the
inflamed atmosphere of the Second Triumvirate. Echoes of this style are
also to be found in private portraiture, even of women, as is shown by
the extraordinary gallery of busts from the tomb of the Licinii.

The creation of the Prima Porta-type, which is dated by coins to the
period when Octavian proclaimed himself Augustus (27 B.c.), but which
ought perhaps to be associated with his triple triumph of 29, is the first
consciously and decisively neoclassical step in portrait sculpture. Its
success is witnessed by the number of copies, by its use over the whole
span of Augustus’ reign and beyond, and by its close connexion with
the Augustan programme, stripped as it was of any glamorous
dramatization of dynastic power, and lit from within by the aura of the
numen, the divine nature. When we can glimpse in the better copies, such
as that from the Via Labicana, the high level of the original, we can
perfectly understand the sense of the message which permeates the
extremely delicate workings of the surface, the accurate, almost aca-
demic, depiction of the hair, and the balance between a well-observed
bone structure and a lightly shaded skin, that is to say, the successful
distancing of the image from worldly concerns. In a word, on the formal
level, the antithesis between the ‘realistic’ Roman portrait and its
‘psychological’ Hellenistic rival is resolved, through appeal to neoclassi-
cal modes of expression. The Classicizing assurance here becomes
assurance of the rebirth of a charisma which is ancient, aristocratic,
national, and therefore neither heroic nor Hellenizing, the aura of one
who is ‘leader’, princeps, of a universal following, clientela, and confirmed
as such by his divine origins: numen adest, a god is present.

Neo-Attic workmen were also engaged in the creation of the most
important monument of Augustan sculpture, the Altar of Peace, Ara
Pacis, which has come down to us in an exceptional state of preserva-
tion.*5 Voted (constituta) by the Senate on 4 July 13 B.c., the date of the
princeps’ return from Gaul and Spain, and consecrated (dedicata) on 30
January 9 B.c., the wedding anniversary of Augustus and Livia, the
monument restated, but in a form much more grandiose and with the
much more pronounced maiestas, majesty, of the /ex arae (the sacred law
concerning sacrifice at the altar), the motifs which had appeared in an
altar dedicated to Fortuna Redux in 19, near the temples of Honos and
Virtus outside the Porta Capena, to celebrate the return of Augustus
from the East. Both altars wished to exalt in public forms a custom which
was traditionally private and informal, the ire obviam (in Latin) or the

45 Torelli 1982 (F 596) 27ff; S. Settis, in Kaiser Augustus 1988 (F 443) 400ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

944 20. ROMAN ART, 43 B.C. TO A.D. 69

apantesis (in Greek), that is the going to meet a person of high rank
outside the traditional boundaries of the city — here represented at the
southernmost extremity by the Altar of Fortune Who Brings Back, and
at the northernmost by the Altar of Peace. In fact both monuments were
intended as substitutes for a triumph which Augustus no longer wanted
(Flor. 11.34). However - and this is a typically Augustan trait — the
renunciation of the triumph and of the excessive honours voted by the
Senate was here rewarded with the establishment among the forms of
state ceremony of a private custom with a dynastic flavour. The
celebration of the return (reditus) became in this way an integral part of
the prerogatives of the princeps, through a process in which the Ara Pacis
is the basic point of both arrival and departure.

The placing of the monument, beside the Via Flaminia but open to the
Campus Martius, is significant. In this case the northern boundaries of
the city are imaginary (as is the ‘realistic’ depiction of the reditus on the
reliefs), but setting the altara Roman mile from the pomerium is a concrete
representation of mos, insofar as it separates imperium militiae from
imperium domi, the imperia of war and peace. According to juridical
tradition, in passing this imaginary line the magistrate was obliged to
take on the clothes and demeanour of imperium domi. Placing the altar at
this point (where at that time the new pomerial line was drawn) is a clear
announcement of peace, and at the same time it is the result of that choice
and it alone (not of some obscure cabbalistic leanings), fully conforming
to the Augustan habit of formally reviving traditional values, even
though they may be introducing nova exempla.

Evocation of the past extends also to the shape of the monument,
which 1s a traditional U-shaped altar set at the centre of a small enclosure.
With its imitation of pillar posts at the four corners and of wooden
panelling within, this enclosure is intended to reproduce a templum in
terris, a space set aside for auspicia and auguria. At the same time, with the
two doors (which are contrary to the norm for augural temp/a) and with
the metallic appearance of the vegetal decoration on the exterior, it also
recalls the shrine of Janus Quirinus in the Forum. Both suggestions
serve to evoke the aura of augural charisma created by the princeps
around his own person and the message of peace implicit in his return.
The choice of the double model — augural temple and Janus Quirinus — is
also reflected in the themes of the decorations in relief which embellish
the exterior of the enclosure. The lower part of these reliefs presents
swags of acanthus leaves populated with Apollinian swans, imitating
metalwork and thus the bronze structure of the Janus Quirinus.

The upper parts of these exterior reliefs present friezes with human
figures. On the long sides facing north and south these depict a
procession. This cannot bea procession of 13 B.C., since that never took

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AUGUSTAN MODEL 945

place, nor one of 9, which if it did occur would not have seen among its
participants Agrippa, who is shown on the frieze but who had died in 12.
It is rather a theoretical, idealized depiction of an imperial reditus for
which it clearly aims to establish a norm. It means to depict the reditus of
13 B.C. not as it was but as it should have been, so that in future the return
of the princeps might be marked by that same ire obviam, with the same
participants and in the same order. An order of procession very carefully
worked out by protocol embraces both sides: priests from the ordo
sacerdotum in front (pontifices and augures on the south side, XV viri and
Vlviri, on the north) are followed by members of the domus Iulia ranged
according to the ordo affinitatis, their ranking by relationship to him,
which was prescribed by #os and by Augustus’ testamentary wishes. He
himself is presented, significantly, in the robes of one sacrificing for his
own return, a focal point between priests and relatives. The observation
of details of protocol is extremely careful, as is shown, for example, by
the presence of the famines out of order at the shoulders of an Augustus
presented in his role as pontifex maximus (another chronological ‘impre-
cision’), or by the distribution of the two branches of the family on two
sides, following firm genealogical logic. As usual, details appear on the
frieze which have no relevance to protocol, but which allude rather to
matters of status or propaganda, such as the elder Drusus shown in
military costume, or the two children Gaius and Lucius Caesar dressed in
the manner of participants in the /usus Troiae. The panels beside the doors
depict the goddess Roma between Honos and Virtus, and Venus-Tellus-
Pax among heavenly breezes (aurae caelestes), on the east side; those on the
west, Mars and the /uperca/, and Aeneas sacrificing the Laurentine sow,
with a complex interweaving of meaning and structural responses
between themes and iconographies.

Iconographical echoes among panels on the same side serve to
confirm common meanings within the diversity of subjects. Aeneas and
Mars, founders respectively of the gens Iulia and the populus Romanus, are
paired —as would happen in the Forum of Augustus — by the omen of the
discovery of a mythical animal (the sow and the she-wolf). This prodigy
augurs the beginning of different heroic ages and different families, but
these are united by the fact that Aeneas was the son of Venus while Mars
was her husband, and she in her turn appears on the other side of the
monument in the position of the semplum which, according to augural
law, is sinistima, or the most favourable of all, and rightly so. On this side
the iconographical resemblances serve to establish the indivisibility of
the pairing Roma—Venus (a couple later consecrated by Hadrian in his
colossal temple) and Roma-—Pax, a pax Romana in which Rome, flanked
by Honos and Virtus, provides the ethical and political key to the
monument, where Venus—Pax among the aurae caelestes provides the

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

946 20. ROMAN ART, 43 B.C. TO A.D. 69

religious key. Here there is also a series of possible combinations,
running from the formulaic ‘pax terra marique parta’ to the less ritual but
more inclusive ‘Aeneadum genetrix, hominum divomque voluptas’ of
Lucretian memory. These two goddesses, representing divine time
(aetas) and successful conclusions (res prospere gestas), and Mars and
Aeneas, embodiments of heroic ages (aefates) and of beginnings (snitia)
on the west side, correspond precisely with each other, symmetrical both
directly and chiastically. With a perfect circularity of thought and
expression, Rome and Mars represent the dimension of the arbs, Venus
and Aeneas the dimension of the gens: the origins and fulfilment of both
are evoked moving from west to east, their revivalist character in the
opposite direction. Augustus proceeds from the Via Flaminia across the
space of the templum, with the passage rich with omens (augurium
augustum) over the central augural line, and peacefully celebrates the
triumph offered and refused, moving between the two goddesses to
leave the temple as the new Aeneas and the new Romulus (proceeding
east to west). In the anniversary sacrifices of 30 January and 4 July,
entering from the west and leaving from the east side, the princeps or the
priests on his behalf experience anew the ‘historic’ sequence of the
primordia urbis and the primordia gentis (the beginnings of the city of Rome
and the Julian family), to bear witness to the fact that, thanks to the new
Aeneas and the new Romulus, city and family are turning again to the
perfection of a new age, nova aetas, a novus ordo saeclorum.

The style is rich in meanings, all of them playing within the purely
traditional framework of augural law, of priestly ritual, of the ius
imaginum — besides Augustus, only Agrippa and Appuleius Saturninus,
as adult relatives and holders of curule magistracies, have a recognizable
likeness on the southern frieze of the altar — and of the will of the
paterfamilias. The style tries to underline the quality and unity of these
diverse messages with the variety of languages and the generally
Classicizing patina. The tiny frieze crowning the altar, which depicts the
procession of the annual sacrum composed of the colleges of priests and
Vestals with their appropriate victims, has however a didactic tone that
has very little classicizing about it, being rather a faithful transcription of
the /ex arae and thus bound to traditional forms of thought and
expression. Composed of single figures in fairly high relief, this style
reappears in the small friezes on triumphal arches, such as those of Titus
in Rome and of Trajan at Beneventum, and it is the most susceptible to
‘plebeian involutions’. of which the style of the small frieze on the arch of
Constantine is but the culmination. This level of discourse necessarily
simplifies and rejects all tendencies of Hellenistic embellishment, but it
co-exists with the loftier level of Classicizing abstraction in the great
frieze of the procession, where the elimination of any reference to space

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AUGUSTAN MODEL 947

and time (a function of the non-realistic character of the representation)
corresponds to the fully neoclassical rendering of the faces and postures
of the participants in the procession and the rite. A comparison is often
made with the frieze on the Parthenon but this refers in a highly
idealizing way to the subject-matter of the Ara Pacis: the style of the
monument depends rather on late Hellenistic experiments of a classiciz-
ing nature, beginning with the great frieze on the altar at Pergamum.
This distinction helps us to understand the more decidedly Hellenistic
character of the minor panels, born of the same tradition (we can
compare them with the Telephos frieze on the Pergamene altar), in
which it is much easier to observe the composite nature of the
representation, consisting of classicizing figures set against an idyllic
Hellenistic landscape. The slight but perceptible difference of style
between panels and processional frieze is closely tied to the diversity of
genres in the two parts: in the frieze courtly, solemn, timeless and
rhetorical in the grand style, but in the panels, seemingly contradictory
but callimachean in flavour, that is, Classicizing and pathetic at the same
time, as well as homerizing and grandiose in the style of the Hellenistic
epyllion. In any case, these diverse stylistic realities, all of them part of
the same monument and the same workshop, are perfectly understand-
able in terms of a neo-Attic culture — one whose strong propensity for
elaborate toreutic models is so evident in the frieze of acanthus — a
culture acclimatized for some time in Rome and now able to express in
accomplished form the regime culture which was now fully functioning
in the last decade of the first century B.c.

Painting, however, is even more revealing of the profound changes
that occurred in the middle years of the Augustan Principate. The
origins of the extremely baroque Second Style can be fixed chronologi-
cally at the turn of the second to the first century B.c., and ideologically in
the yearning for the impressive spaces and the luxury of decor of late
Hellenistic royal palaces. The years of Caesar’s brief and brilliant career
saw the highest level of /uxwria expressed by the extraordinary painted
architectures, conceived and executed by expert scene-painters on the
walls of patrician town residences or of aristocratic villas in Latium and
Campania. The decorations of the Roman house on the Esquiline (70
B.C.),* and in the villas of the Mysteries (60 B.c.),47 at Boscoreale (Go—50
B.C.),*8 and at Oplontis (50 B.c.),49 count among the most significant
examples of the high level of quality of this painting, which must be

# P.H. von Blanckenhagen, MDAI(R) Jo (1963) 106ff, Gallina 1964 (F 380).

“ Editio princeps by A. Maiuri, La Villa det Misters (2nd edn, Rome, 1947).

48 B. Andreae, in Kaiser Augustus 1988 (F 443) 273ff-

4? A. De Franciscis, PP 1973, 453; id. in La regione sotterrata del Vesuvio (Naples, 1982) 907ff.
(with earlier bibliography).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

948 20. ROMAN ART, 43 B.C. TO A.D. 69

assigned to the period between 70 and 50 B.c., linked as it is to the
baroque in all the other figurative arts between Sulla and Caesar.°%°
Decorative painting under the Second Triumvirate and in the early years
of the reign of Augustus shows the obvious signs of a crisis in this
baroque. Augustus’ house on the Palatine,>! decorated after he acquired
the property from the orator Hortensius in 36, is a precious document of
that crisis and, more generally, of figurative art in the decade before
Octavian assumed the title of Augustus. One of the two libraries of the
domus is marked by a very traditional wall in an austere Second Style:
without ‘open walls’, without effects or perspective, and without copies
of famous classical paintings, it essentially offers only a false marble
incrustation rendered illusionistically in paint. Other areas, such as the
ramp connecting the domus with the temple of Palatine Apollo, the great
tetrastyle hall (oecus), or the Room of the Garlands, show that ‘open
walls’ are confined to the upper parts of the walls. This lesser austerity in
decoration, compared to that of the library, indicates the less ‘official’
character of these rooms. But the ‘open wall’ with a perspective view and
the loss of structural consistency in the decoration of one of the two
small rooms (no. 11) to the sides of the reception hall (no. 10), and
likewise the insertion of the central painting in bedroom no. 14, reveal
the even more private character of these areas. This is most noticeable in
the small and extremely private annexe (diaeta, no. 7) at the end of the
north-west portico of the peristyle, where we find the greatest novelty of
the time, a room entirely decorated with a monochrome black back-
ground, festoons hanging from small, non-architectural pillars and from
very slender candelabras, and idyllic sacred landscapes painted in yellow
colour, superimposed: technically we have already reached the Third
Style, as in the Black Room in the House of the Farnesina a decade later.
It is thus easy to understand why Vitruvius, writing in this very period
before 27, penned his invective (vi1.5.3) against just such effronteries,
which threatened the physical consistency of painted buildings and with
it the informing principle of Classical representation, mimesis, the
imitation of reality.

The trend lamented by Vitruvius made giant strides in a relatively
brief time. The House of the Farnesina (which was probably Agrippa’s
urban villa)52 at this point features slender architectural forms and
paintings imagined as centrally suspended on walls which are still
Second Style, in contrast with the Black Room in full Third Style;
whereas the so-called House of Livia, an extension of Augustus’ House

50 On the relationship between painting and royal architecture: Engemann 1967 (F 359); and K.
Fittschen, in Zanker 1976 (E 141) $39ff.

51 Carettoni 1983 (F 316); Carettoni, in Kaiser Augustus 1988 (F 443) no. 135, 28741.

52 Bragantini and de Vos 1982 (F 297).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AUGUSTAN MODEL 949

on the Palatine, with its less realistic architecture, large paintings,
monochrome friezes and candelabras, belongs about halfway between
the House of Augustus and the Farnesina, that is to say, in 30-25 B.c.3 In
this particular period, marked by the conquest of Egypt and the Actian
triumph, we find the triumphal entry into painting of egyptomania,
which informs both the dying Second and the nascent Third Styles.
Besides the well-known contemporary Isiac Hall belonging to a private
house on the Palatine, the very recent restoration of the decoration of
bedroom no. 15, the so-called ‘studiolo’, on the upper, private floor of
the House of Augustus, a room decorated a little later than the one on the
lower floor (¢. 30-25), shows how rapidly the passion for these particular
chinoiseries of Egyptian forms and decorations spread, mostly in the
non-public parts of houses, and how a taste for both the floral and the
filiform expanded, on which the transition to the Third Style was really
based.

As we have already seen, the Third Style in theory took shape around
the year 30 B.c. The reasons for its appearance and the paths it followed
were completely independent of the conquest of Egypt and the conse-
quent Alexandrianism, although these are often wrongly invoked to
explain the beginnings of the Third Style.54 However, the resistance
shown in the passage cited from Vitruvius must have lasted at least
fifteen years, for it is only around the year 15 B.c. that we find the first
examples of the Third Style on a large scale, as in the pyramid of Gaius
Cestius, built before 12 B.c., and the Auditorium of Maecenas, which
certainly predated his death in 8 B.c.55 In spite of its non-mimetic and
therefore unrealistic and fundamentally anti-classical nature, the new
style paradoxically responded perfectly to the expressive demands of
Augustan neoclassicism; as such it is no accident that it was revived as
the official decorative style for the First Napoleonic Empire. This style
also helped to achieve a beneficial sumptuary effect, through the
complete suppression of /uxuria. Valuable objects such as vases of glass
and precious metal, gold and silver shields, costly veils and fabrics,
painted as if they had been forgotten among the flamboyant building
fantasies of the Second Style, appear less and less frequently in the years
between 30 and 20 B.c. They give way to values which are no longer
sumptuary but ethical, and which are represented by imitations of
famous panel paintings placed ina central position, copies or reworkings
of classical originals, while the wealth which used to be set realistically

53. Editio princeps: Rizzo 1937 (F 547).

5 For problems of chronology, see most recently W. Ehrhardt, Stilgeschichtliche Untersuchungen an
rémischen Wandmalerein (Mainz 1987).

55 Pyramid of C. Cestius: P. S. Bartoli, Gis antichi sepolcri ovvero mausalei romani ed etruschi (Rome,

1967); Ehrhardt, Stilgeschichtliche 5 3f, figs. 101-4. Auditorixm of Maecenas: ibid 123 (with earlier
bibliography).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

950 20. ROMAN ART, 43 B.C. TO A.D. 69

among buildings is transformed into costly little objects painted within
boards (pinakes) and therefore expressly ‘false’. All these ‘true’ values
were enhanced by the virtual disappearance of the architectural frames,
which were too reminiscent of the populi voluptas, the popular pleasure of
the theatre, and which were replaced by monochrome surfaces with
narrow borders of minuscule friezes, essentially refined tapestries, in
order to emphasize subjects or treatments which were either classicizing
or purely escapist, bucolic idylls. The effect was remarkable, as witness
the frescoes of the villa at Boscoreale (which is rightly thought to have
belonged to Agrippa Postumus).%

The ancient relationship between a decorative style and the dignitas
and decorum of its surroundings, the explicit link between the public and
private function of the parts of the house and their furnishings and
decor, which was so alive at the beginning of the Augustan age, began to
deteriorate. This was due most probably to the clear ‘death of politics’,
which rendered such links and distinctions obsolete, as well as to the
consequent spread of a culture of escapism, one which was largely based
on the pervasive diffusion of sacred and idyllic themes. Having passed
from gardens and peristyles to reception halls and traditional rooms,
these themes were thus translated into stucco for ceilings (the famous
stuccoes of the House of the Farnesina come to mind), into large-scale
paintings, into pinakes or friezes, into relief sculpture in the small neo-
Attic panels to be inserted into the walls, and into genre groups or
individual sculptures in the round, representing fishermen and priest-
esses, erofes and wild beasts, Apollos demoted to lampstands and
Dionysiac figures. The intention was obviously to make sculptures and
large paintings stand out against a background of monochrome walls
and above mosaic floors which were basically a uniform black and white
and devoid of ornamentation, but the devaluation of meaning in all of
these scenes is only too evident, if not in purpose then in result.

Official culture having been monopolized by the princeps, the urban
nobilitas or the domi nobiles who imitated urban models, the private sphere
accounts for the great bulk of consumption of art. Hence there was a
diffusion of motifs and themes, which originated at court, within the
framework of a production for a more or less wide consumption, one
favoured in this case by techniques of ‘mechanical’ reproduction. The
highest quality could be found in relief work in metal and in the art of
gem-cutting, where the intrinsic value of the material could not help but
accentuate the high level of workmanship. There can be no doubt that
for such works the contribution of Hellenistic craftsmen was not only
great but decisive, as is the case for example in the cameos — perhaps the
most Augustan of the minor arts — designed for the imperial house by

5 Von Blanckenhagen and Alexander 1962 (F 287).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AUGUSTAN MODEL 951

such Alexandrian artists as Dioscurides and his son Hyllos.5’ Extremely
sophisticated silverware, from the exceptionally beautiful pieces from
Hildesheim to the Hoby cups signed with the significant name of
Cheirisophos (‘Skilled-of-hand’), bear the imprint of great Hellenistic
relief-work.5* In the cups from Boscoreale it also grappled successfully
with themes of official ‘historical’ representations,°° and contributed no
less than cameos and gems to establishing the official standards of good
taste. From this there derived objects with a much larger circulation
using less valuable materials. Glass and glass paste adopted forms and
themes originally found in cameos, in gems, and in plate of precious
stone and rock crystal, in order to create either such exceptional pieces as
the famous Portland Vase® or vessels for daily use in transparent and
coloured glass.6! Toreutic works had even wider repercussions. On the
one hand they inspired decoration, both vegetal and non-vegetal, for
ceremonial bronzes (tripods, braziers, table vessels),°* while on the other
their style came to be engraved on the humblest terracotta, on the
‘Campana’ plaques used to decorate public and private porticoes and
sometimes even temples (which abound in themes beloved of Augustan
neoclassicism), and above all on the well-known and very widespread
terra sigillata, which had been manufactured in the workshops at Arezzo
since the age of Caesar, and then in their branch kilns in Italy, and later
still in Gaul.63

These luxury goods are understandably linked very closely with the
higher expressions of the figurative arts, specifically with bronze and
marble sculpture in the round, and thanks to them a single cultural fabric
developed which cut across virtually all the social classes capable of
expressing artistic culture. From the aristocracy to the middle classes of
the Italian towns, they could display their understanding of, and their
ability to adapt to, both the formal and the ethical models prescribed by
the princeps, through portrait sculpture and painting in their houses,
through altars placed at crossroads and sculptures among their house-
hold furnishings, and through the use of bronzework, silverware and

57 On gem-cutting, see the excellent synthesis by C. Maderna-Lauter, in Kaiser Augustus 1988 (F
443) 441ff (with earlier bibliography). On the imperial cameos, see especially H. Jucker, JDAI 91
(1976) 2101ff. 538 E. Kinzl, in Kaiser Augustus 1988 (F 443) 568ff.

3 F. Baratte, Le trésor dorfevrerie romaine de Boscoreale (Paris, 1986).

61 On this there is no modern, up-to-date synthesis. See the collection of C. Isings, Roman Glass
from Dated Finds (Groningen, 1937).

62 There is no standard work. See meanwhile E. Pernice, JO.AI 11 (1908) 212ff; M. Bieber, Die
antiken Skulpturen und Bronzen des konighichen Museum Fredericianum in Kassel (Marburg, 1915); R.
Thouvenot, Catalogue des figurines et objets de bronze du Musée Archéologique de Madrid (Paris, 927); C.
Boube Picot, Les bronzes antiques de Maroc (Rabat, 1975); J. Petit, Bromzes antiques de la collection Dutuit
(Paris, 1980).

63 On all these kinds of materials, see A. Giardina, A. Schiavone (eds.), Merci, mercati ¢ scambi nel
Mediterraneo (Societd romana e produzione schiavistica u, Bari, 1981).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

952 20. ROMAN ART, 43 B.C. TO A.D. 69

pottery. The sofa Italia of Augustus was expressed in calculated fashion
through an unquestioned, capillary-like acceptance of the artistic culture
promoted by the princeps for his own city, and spread by those who
belonged to this historical bloc in the towns and colonies of the empire.

III. FROM TIBERIUS TO NERO: THE CRISIS OF THE MODEL

Basically the reign of Tiberius was a pedestrian repetition of the pattern
laid down by the Principate of Augustus. Tiberius’ amply documented
lack of enthusiasm for public works lies at the root of the extremely
modest innovations of the period in town planning and architecture.
The only important work in relief in the city of Rome was the temple of
the Divine Augustus, called the templum novum divi Augusti, situated
between the Palatine and the Capitol in the area of the vicus Jugarius, and
this is balanced by the ‘private’ works dedicated by Livia to the memory
of her deceased spouse and now deified father by adoption, the Palatine
temple of the Divus Augustus and the colossal statue of him near the
Theatre of Marcellus.64 These initiatives were of great importance,
however, because it was undoubtedly in the early years of Tiberius,
especially between a.p. 14 and 23, that the cult of the dynasty was
spreading through Italy and the provinces along the path of the usual
model of imitatio Romae. The effects of this diffusion are very striking,
and they influenced both town planning and architecture, through the
proliferation of temples of Augustus or of Rome and Augustus in Italy
and the provinces, and of sculpture and decoration as well, with the
endless commissions of statuary groups® depicting what was already in
an inscription of A.D. 33 called the domus divina, the divine house.

In fact a significant number of the portraits of the first imperial
dynasty of Rome are Tiberian in date, and it is in the age of Tiberius that
we even find new portrait-types of Divus Augustus (probably the so-called
Forbes-type, which arguably comes from his colossal statue at the
Theatre of Marcellus), as well as of Livia and of Tiberius himself.67 On
the whole, however, art in the Tiberian age followed in the path traced
by Augustus, but it accentuates the traits of formal stiffness and the
progressive loss of organic unity and ideological coherence of the
Augustan model. Portrait-sculpture — as in the images of Germanicus
and Drusus Minor — is increasingly hard and dry; wall-painting unimagi-
natively echoes the schemes of the Third Style; the decoration of

* On these works of Tiberius and Livia: Torelli 1982 (F 596) 63ff.

65 Full bibliography in Hanlein-Schafer 1985 (F408); also, Le culte des souverains dans Pempire romain
(Geneva, 1973); and Price 1984 (F199). 6 AE 1978, 295.

87 P. Zanker, in Fittschen and Zanker 1985 (F 365) tno. 8, 7ff; Gross 1962 (F 401); Polacco 195 5 (F
528).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CRISIS OF THE MODEL 953

buildings and of funerary altars retraces the forms worked out in the
mid-Augustan period, but less lightly and brightly.

The last years of Tiberius and the ephemeral reign of Caligula show
the first skirmishes of a structural crisis in the formal and ideological
model established by Augustus, although output continued to develop
with explicit or implicit citations of Augustan works; with Claudius and
Nero the crisis was finally revealed. In town-planning and architecture,
the innovations which bore the richest implications for the future were
those brought about by the definitive centralization in the hands of the
princeps of all the machinery for carrying out public works, and by the
huge, concomitant growth in the parasitic dependence of the urban plebs
upon him. Augustus and Tiberius — but especially Augustus — had
controlled this trend by diverting their investments into large works
which bore witness to their own pietas. Claudius, on the other hand,
constructed a large new port at the mouth of the Tiber, which joined
with the great warehouses and similar edifices at Ostia to facilitate the
supply of grain to Rome, and he reorganized the distributions of grain
(frumentationes) at Rome, unifying in the porticus Minucia frumentaria the
administrative offices for the distribution of food. Along the same lines
of ever more grandiose intervention in the development of the city, are
Nero’s ambitious projects for urban renewal after the fire of A.D. 64. The
very few works actually completed basically comprise the baths and
gymnasium, which doubled the capacity of those of Agrippa (perhaps
introducing a new type of bath plan, called ‘imperial’), and the great
market (macellum magnum), built on the Caelian Hill next to that dedicated
to Livia on the Esquiline. However the triumph of the neo-baroque in
this period is seen above all in the creativity of private architecture,
especially in plans, and in the new conception of decorative elements.
Among the latter, most noticeable is the predilection for rustic ashlar
work, rich in chiaroscuro effects, which appears in more than one
Claudian monument, from the grand pillared portico of the Porticus
Claudii to the imposing fagade of the Porta Maggiore, and to the
substructures of the temple of the Divine Claudius which date from the
earliest years of Nero. Even the decorative motifs on friezes and
entablatures and on funerary altars and urns lose the stiff and severe
execution of the Tiberian period to take on a new and accentuated
interest in deep carving and shadows which enlivens garlands, bucrania
(cattle skulls), heads of animals at corners, and so forth, thus setting the
stage for the Flavian taste in decoration.

But it was in his Golden House that Nero wished to show off all of the
advances which had been won in the period of late-republican /yxuria

68 On all Julio-Claudian architecture and town-planning in Rome, see P. Gros, in Gros and
Torelli 1988 (A 41) 179ff (with earlier bibliography).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

954 20. ROMAN ART, 43 B.C. TO A.D. 69

and then frozen in the age of Augustus and Tiberius, and thus to make
them live again in the light of a century of experience in building and
technology. First we may compare the plan of the Domus Aurea with the
general conceptions lying behind some of the great private buildings of
the emperor Tiberius, that is, the Domus Tiberiana at Rome and the
Tiberian villas at Sperlonga and Capri. Beginning with the palace at
Rome, which has been revealed by recent excavation and study, Tiberian
buildings show strong tendencies to centralize spaces and corridors.
Functional areas dominate, while only very small separate complexes,
intended to enjoy the best panoramic views, seem to be spread about in
asymmetrical fashion: the imperial loggia at Capri, for example, or the
grotto of Sperlonga. But the Domus Aurea, a true and proper villa urbana
with a baroque taste for painted scenery, has no real centre to its design.
It appears rather to be conceived as a cluster of complexes and pavilions
of varying character and importance, made up of imperial properties old
and new which are unified around an ideal centre, the pool (stagnum) of
the villa, on the site later to be occupied by the Colosseum. Thus can we
in fact reconstruct the immense urban villa of the emperor, even if much
of the original conception was later destroyed by the superimpositions of
the Flavians, Trajan and Hadrian, which intentionally obliterated the
designs developed for the tyrant prince by his magistri et machinatores,
Severus and Celer (Tac. Ann. xv.42). However the thinking behind the
project also involved a direct connexion between ‘wild’ nature (water
above all, but also gardens and woods) and separate parts of the villa,
which are made to fit in with that nature. That this is so, is confirmed by
the embryonic design of Caligula with his ships on the Lake of Nemi —
where we see a dramatically astonishing inversion of relationships and
values between lake and dwellings — or by Nero’s villa at Subiaco. As to
the many pavilions and parts of the Golden House, the baroque stamp
appears in the famous description of the revolving banquet hall (cenatio
rotunda), which was set in motion by an appropriate machine and which
was rich in symbolic implications (Suet. Ner. 31). It is also clear in the
layout of its various parts, the best preserved of which is now visible
under the Baths of Trajan, in the tendency to break up symmetry and
rectilinearity, from the trapezoidal central hallway to the famous
nympheum known as the Octagonal Room, where the central structure
with its side areas designed according to a mixed-line plan reproduces a
cupola with pavilions for the first time since the days of the late Republic.
The taste for a residence laid out in relation to a lake is entirely
Hellenistic and Alexandrian — in particular, Caligula’s idea of the ships
on the Lake of Nemi is very Alexandrian, derived from the well-known
thalamegos ship of Ptolemy IV. This taste is echoed even in the dwellings
of the emerging classes in the Italian cities, where the old traditional plan

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CRISIS OF THE MODEL 955

of the Pompeian domus, which was already clearly in decline in the
suburban villas of the late Republic and under Augustus, atrophies and
quite disappears, to the benefit of areas intended for the amoenitas of
gardens, of views of the sea, and of dining-rooms under pergolas. With
his descendants and successors, the luxury driven from the door by
Augustus returns through the window of opulent private consumption.

The baroque and dramatic form was the idiom of this revived /uxuria.
Imperial portraits, soon imitated by private portraits which often
followed them slavishly not only in style but even in iconography, reflect
the general longing for pathos and effect, by enlivening surfaces which
were once so frigid, creating contrasts between scarcely shaded faces and
turbulent hairstyles, in a word replacing rigid Tiberian ‘fine art’ with
treatments which were softer and more pathetic and yet which did not —
here as in other artistic media — break with the Classicizing essence of the
plastic arts. This is especially noticeable in the Medici-Della Valle
reliefs,6° a splendid series of ‘historical’ reliefs from the early years of
Claudius which were reworked in the Arcus Novus of Diocletian. The
monument to which they had belonged was a ‘copy’ of the Ara Pacis and
is generally identified with an Altar of Piety (Ara Pietatis), which is
known only from an inscription recorded in a manuscript, although
some see it as the Altar of the Julian Gens (Ara Gentis Iuliae), which is
mentioned in military diplomas as standing on the Capitoline Hill. The
parts which survive, and which can be assigned to the enclosure, show
processions of magistrates, priests, sacrificers and victims passing in
front of certain monuments in Rome, the temple of Magna Mater on the
Palatine, the temple of the Divine Augustus also on the Palatine — or,
according to some, that of Mars Ultor— and perhaps the temple of Fides
on the Capitol. Regardless of who the divinities may be and where the
altar stood, the sacra certainly refer to the imperial cult, and celebrate the
deification of Livia ordered by Claudius immediately after his accession.
The imitation of the Augustan model is extremely clear. The surviving
fragments all pertain to the procession and they essentially reflect the
paratactic composition of the processional frieze of the Ara Pacis. At the
same time, in comparison, they innovate with noticeable hints of
movement in the figures and especially with the disappearance of the
Classicizing neutral background of the frieze: this is replaced by an
almost ‘plebeian’ insistence on the painstakingly architectural depictions
of the temples, which are inserted into the picture in order to locate the
event precisely. The rendering also of the draperies, of the texture of the
hair, and of the surfaces in general shows signs of the new stylistic
climate, which appears to have been already active and widespread in
A.D. 42-3, according to the dating of the monument which is universally

Torelli 1982 (F 596) 7off.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

956 20. ROMAN ART, 43 B.C. TO A.D. 69

accepted. Comparison with Tiberian monuments, such as the so-called
Altar of the Vicomagistri,” and with Augustan, suchas the figured frieze
on the temple of Apollo Sosianus,”! shows the gradual abandonment by
the Julio—Claudian figurative arts of the model created by Augustus. For
the ‘staccato’ composition and the ‘stiacciato’ relief of the Augustan
monument, we find substituted two finely distinguished planes of
representation, with the precise appearance of ‘natural perspective’ in
the full-bodied first plane of representation of the Tiberian altar, and
with the rich chiaroscuro of the Claudian relief.

In decorative painting Tiberian Classicism carries on the Augustan
heritage, especially in the obliteration of all use of the old Second Style,
in order to achieve an air of maiestas and gravitas in individual reception
areas. The old conception which linked the function of an area with the
form and quality of its decoration gives way to a Third Style generaliza-
tion and to the proliferation of copies of Classical paintings at the centre
of walls. But, as in the developments which we have seen in architecture
and sculpture, in the midst of uniform tapestries barely edged with
extremely fragile friezes in the Augustan tradition, there spring up in the
high Tiberian period extravagant architectural fantasies, filiform, the-
atrical wings, and almost metaphysical perspectives made of cande-
labras: between the end of the reign of Tiberius and the first years of
Claudius, these prepare for the birth of the Fourth Style, an expression of
the baroque renaissance in the field of decorative painting.” The Fourth
Style in fact represents a conscious and deliberate revival of the great
architectural paintings and dramatic views of the Second Style; but the
revival manifests itself not as a restoration of the realistic values longed
for by Vitruvius more than half a century earlier, but as a further
accentuation of fantastic, non-realistic, theatrical effects, truly and
properly surreal landscapes, in which room is found for candelabras and
large paintings, together with figures leaning out which draw attention
to and enliven the many superimposed stage-scenes.

The Fourth Style, which revives and mixes themes, elements and
languages of the Second and Third Styles, is a ‘pictorial asianism’, in
every way worthy to illustrate the verses of Seneca and Lucan, the
coherent formulation of a taste which longed to surpass and to subsume
the golden classicism of Augustus.

The nature of this phenomenon of the transformation of taste should
be sought not so much ina regular, abstract swing between neoclassical
and neobaroque periods in the figurative arts of Rome, although that
dialectic did indeed exist, and not only in the Julio-Claudian age. It is

70 T Holscher, in Kaiser Augustus 1988 (F 443) no. 224, 396ff.
1 A. Viscogliosi, 1988 (F 443) nos. 31-42, 144ff.
72 W. Ehrhardt, Stilgeschichtliche, 85 ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CRISIS OF THE MODEL 957

rather to be found above all in the deep crisis within the historical bloc of
tota Italia which had arisen around Augustus.73 This bloc essentially
found its expression in what Bianchi Bandinelli very rightly termed ‘the
art of the centre of power’,”4 the neoclassicism which gave shape to the
accomplishments of the emperor and the upper and middle classes and to
the more powerful works commissioned by them, which were closely
tied to the workshops or to the architectural and technical models of the
capital. But the unity showed cracks from the beginning. While the
Augustan programme reached its fulfilment at Rome in the last two
decades of the first century B.c., in the cities of northern and central Italy
and in the more Romanized provinces of the West (Narbonensis,
Baetica, and the eastern coasts of Spain) the old tradition — Hellenistic,
baroque, pictorial and full of pathos — remained of central interest to
important local patrons:75 they continued to employ it in their own self-
glorifying monuments and to mix it promiscuously with some of the
Classicizing and courtly models from the capital. With the age of
Tiberius the separation increases, as the old Hellenistic models of the
Italian and provincial periphery lose their Hellenistic patina to reveal a
schematic framework of Italic tradition. The ‘plebeian’ artistic tenden-
cies of local workshops take on substance,’ giving voice in a simple and
often shapeless language, reminiscent of ancient, central-Italian exper-
iences, to aspirations which were no longer those of the ruling classes of
municipal Italy — they were already fully co-opted by ‘the centre of
power’, or else extinct — but which were cherished by wealthy freedmen,
now honoured as augustales — a concrete artistic counterpart to Trimal-
chio in Petronius’ Satiricon. In their eyes this ‘plebeian’ art served to
express aspirations of social ascent and political recognition.

In truth, this very conception of co-optation, which was inherent in
the social structure by ordines in imperial Rome, undermined the
apparently rocklike solidity of the historical Augustan bloc, which tried
to model the portrait features of its members on those of the princeps and
other members of the imperial house, and which meant with the
assurance of Classicism to leave behind the uncertainties and the anguish
of the overturning of ordines which was provoked by /uxuria, by /ucrum
(avarice), and by the civil wars. With the age of Claudius the erosion of
Augustus’ social and economic order is quite clear, and the whole
framework of the traditional society of ordines is in flux, as is shown by

73 On this historical unity: M. Torelli, in Kaiser Augustus 1988 (F 443) 23 ff.

74 Bianchi Bandinelli 1970 (F 275).

78 This development is well illustrated by the collective taste for funerary monuments with a
doric frieze: Torelli 1969 (£ 129).

%6 The definition is that of R. Bianchi Bandinelli, in DArch 1 (1967) 7ff= Dall Ellenismo al
Medioeve (Rome, 1978) 35ff (in which version the author adds an Introduction, pp. 3ff, with further
definition of the concept).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

958 20. ROMAN ART, 43 B.C. TO A.D. 69

the beginning of the rapid decline of the economy and social structure of
Italian towns, and by the correspondingly rapid ascent of the provincial
governing classes of Gaul and Spain. To this great turnover of
governing classes is connected a dual and related phenomenon, that is,
the rediscovery of formal baroque values in the culture of the court, both
literary and artistic, and the formal birth of municipal ‘plebeian’ art,
which lay in its turn at the roots of later provincial art. The cultural
background of this new ruling class of Italian and provincial origin was
in fact largely to be sought in the ancient formal experiences of its more
remote origins, in the baroque and Asian artistic culture still dominant in
their areas of origin two generations before, that is, in the world of
Caesar and the triumvirs, a world which survived up to the early years of
the first century a.D. and was not erased by the ‘normalization’ imposed
by Augustus, as we can see in the art which spread quickly through
Cisalpine Italy and Narbonensis in the first centuries B.c. and a.p.’7 At
the same time, there were vacuums of power and of culture left behind by
these former provincials in their swift social rise under Augustus and
Tiberius, the local representatives of the historical bloc which was the
base of the new Principate. These vacuums were filled by lower social
classes, which were essentially of freedmen origin and which caused to
flourish again even more remote conceptual, ideological and formal
experiences, those of the artistic culture of the Romano-lItalic oine,
which expressed better than any other gesture the elements of affirma-
tion of status which were necessary to the self-glorification of the new
and powerful Trimalchios.

Therefore, the two greatest historians of Roman art in ourcentury, G.
Rodenwaldt and R. Bianchi Bandinelli, spoke rightly of the essentially
bipolar nature of art at Rome. To the eternal formal bipolarity between
Classicism and the baroque, within which was played out the Augustan
experience of official, programmatic art and its crisis in the age of
Claudius and Nero, there corresponds the no less eternal bipolarity of
mentalities and idioms between ‘art of the centre of power’ and ‘plebeian
art’.

7 M. Torelli, Index 13 (1985) 5 89ff.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 21

EARLY CLASSICAL PRIVATE LAW

BRUCE W. FRIER

With the establishment of the Augustan Principate, Roman private law
enters its ‘classical’ period.! During the largely tranquil centuries that
followed, Rome’s jurists articulated and developed a body of law that is
beyond doubt the most conspicuous and influential Roman contribution
to Western civilization.2 This chapter does not describe the system of
Roman law itself,3 but instead concentrates on the jurists and the Roman
judicial system during the Julio-Claudian and Flavian eras.

I. THE JURISTS AND THE PRINCIPATE

Classical Roman law is based upon a distinctive procedural system,
called formulary procedure.* Formulary procedure, like most other well-
developed procedural systems, distinguishes between justiciability (éar-
isdictio), the judicial determination that a plaintiff is stating a legally
acceptable cause of action, and adjudication (isdicatio), the hearing and
resolution of the plaintiff’s claim. However, formulary procedure
radicalizes this distinction: the trial is divided into two stages decided by
separate persons.

At Rome, almost all suits between citizens were raised initially in the
court of the urban praetor, an annually elected magistrate. The Praetor’s
Edict listed those causes of action that he was willing to accept during his
term of office, as well as the general procedure to be followed in his
court; already by the late Republic, the contents of the Edict varied little
from year to year. If, in a given case, the plaintiff stated an acceptable
cause of action, the praetor assigned a judge (iudex), or in some cases

1 On defining classical law, see Wieacker 1961 (F 704) 161-86.

2 See esp. Koschaker 1966 (F 664).

3 On substantive law, see esp. Kaser 1971~5 (F 662) 1-11; on procedure, Kaser 1966 (F 661). The
best general account in English is Buckland 1966 (F 646).

‘ Ic is described at length in Kaser 1966 (F 661) 107-338; see also Pugliese 1963 (F 680). The
following account is necessarily inexact because of its brevity. The only surviving ancient
description is Gai. Inst. tv. Formulary procedure is based on the Urban Praetor’s Edict,
reconstructed by Lenel 1927 (8 110); for the Edict’s state in the early Empire, see Kaser 1984 (F 663)
65-73, 102-8. See also ch. 12 above, pp. 398-4or.

959
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

960 21. EARLY CLASSICAL PRIVATE LAW

multiple judges, to hear the case; the iadex was usually a layman
acceptable as an arbiter to both sides.

In order to instruct the index on handling the case, the praetor
embodied the cause of action, together with any legally acceptable
defences from the defendant, in a brief statement called the formula. This
formula officially appointed the ixdex, named the parties to the suit,
specified the legal issue between them, and ordered the index to decide
the case.5 In the second stage of the trial, the adex heard argument from
rhetorically skilled advocates on either side of the case; on the basis of
this argument he returned a verdict that accorded with the formula.
Although in practice the formulary procedure was complex and devi-
ations from this simplified model were frequent, private trials under
formulary procedure were in principle always highly arbitrational; as a
rule the verdict of the ixdex could be neither reviewed nor appealed.

The formula, which tied together the two stages of a typical trial, gives
formulary procedure its name. This procedural system, introduced by
urban praetors probably in the third century B.c., gradually supplanted
the older and more formalistic Aegis actio system, until by the late Republic
private litigation was normally initiated through formulary procedure.

The principal participants in the Roman judicial system (praetor,
index, and advocates) normally had no special competence in law. The
juristic movement began outside the judicial system. During the third
century B.c., self-styled legal experts (surisconsulti or iurisperiti) under-
took to assist laymen with the drafting of legal instruments or with the
procedural intricacies of trials. However, the juristic movement did not
obtain real influence and intellectual strength until the first century B.c.,
when jurists like Q. Mucius Scaevola (cos. 95) and Ser. Sulpicius Rufus
(cos. 52) began to study legal norms on a far more intensive, ‘scientific’
basis. Their efforts created a true legal science under the control of
professionals. By the last years of the Republic, Roman jurists had come
to exercise considerable influence over the conduct of private trials,
particularly in resolving questions of law that arose in the course of
trials. Although in the late Republic neither the praetor nor the i#dex was
legally obliged to accept the jurists’ opinions as presumptively binding
statements of law, in fact the jurists already determined large areas of law
that had previously been discretionary.®

5 The only completely preserved formula from an actual Roman trial runs, in part: ‘The issue in
this trial will be a formal promise (sponsio). Let C. Blossius Celadus be the iudex. If it appears that C.
Marcius Saturninus ought to pay 6,000 sesterces to C. Sulpicius Cinnamus, which is the issue here,
let C. Blossius Celadus the éxdex condemn C. Marcius Saturninus for 6,000 sesterces to C. Sulpicius
Cinnamus; if it does not appear, let him absolve him ...’ This claim for a specified sum of money (a
condictio) was granted by a duumvir at Puteoli in a.p. 52; it illustrates the structure of a typical
formula. See Bove 1979 (B 212) 97-111.

6 These developments are further described in Frier 1985 (F 652) 261-6. See esp. Cic. Top. 65-6,
written in 44 B.C.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTUS’ REFORMS 961

The establishment of the Augustan Principate did not at first lead, as
might have been expected, to a diminution of juristic independence and
influence. On the contrary, the jurists, who in the late Republic derived
chiefly from the Italian and equestrian stock that formed the core of
Augustus’ new oligarchy,’ found themselves well positioned to interpret
the aspirations of the new regime within the limited but important
domain of private law. Likewise, emperors seem to have perceived the
value in preserving private law’s independence, as a symbol of legiti-
macy and continuity; accordingly, direct imperial intervention in the
Roman judicial system was initially cautious and sporadic, at least as a
rule. Only very slowly, over centuries, did the government move to
control and centralize the administration of justice, and thus to give the
Roman judicial system a more regularized form, one more familiar to
modern eyes. This evolution hinged on two major changes: the gradual
replacement of the formulary system with ‘extraordinary cognition’
under the control of imperial officials; and the rise of imperial rescripts as
a major source of law eventually supplementing or replacing jurists’ law.
However, neither change was complete until after the end of the classical
period of Roman jurisprudence, in the middle of the third century a.p.

During the classical period, Roman jurisprudence was more or less
identical with the thought and writings of the great jurists of the city of
Rome. Except for Gaius’ Institutes, an introductory treatise, no classical
writings survive except in fragmentary form; but Justinian’s Digest,
promulgated in a.p. 533, contains more than 800,000 words of lightly
edited excerpts from the main works of the classical jurists, and other
sources, mainly compilations of post-classical origin, supplement the
Digest.2 By working closely with these sources, modern legal historians
have developed a reasonably reliable impression of how classical Roman
law formed and evolved during the first three centuries of the Empire.

II. AUGUSTUS’ PROCEDURAL REFORMS

Iulius Caesar, during his dictatorship, allegedly contemplated a com-
plete codification of Roman private law; his attempts at legal reform,
though never carried out, thus looked mainly to substantive law.? By
contrast, three times during his long reign Augustus refused to accept
any general grant of power to re-order the law and morals of the Roman
people (cara legum et morum);© instead, he concentrated on careful

7 Cf. Frier 1985 (F 652) 252-7.

8 In addition to the Digest, the main juristic sources for Roman private law are collected in FIR.A
ut. For a survey of surviving legal texts, see Schiller 1978 (F 689) 28-62.

9 Suet. Iul. 44.2; Isid. Etyar. 5.1.5.

10 Augustus, RG 6.1; but contrast Suet. Aug. 27.5, and Dio tiv.10.5. It appears that Augustus

only declined the express power; cf. Schiller 1978 (F 689) 467-8. On Augustus’ moral legislation, see
below at n. 76.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

962 21. EARLY CLASSICAL PRIVATE LAW

procedural reforms that actually consolidated the formulary system and
strengthened the jurists’ authority within it.

Probably in 17 B.c. Augustus proposed and carried a general statute
reforming private procedure (/ex Iulia de indiciis privatis).11 The text of the
law does not survive, but its content is briefly described by Gaius and
also often alluded to in juristic, literary and epigraphic sources. One
portion of this law eliminated almost all surviving vestiges of archaic
legis actio procedure. Henceforth, with the major exception of the
centumviral court (which chiefly heard important inheritance cases), all
private lawsuits brought at Rome had to be initiated through formulary
procedure.'2

The Lex Iulia also contained numerous provisions on the process of
adjudication; it regulated the official panel (a/bum) from which indices
were normally named, the conduct of judges in hearing trials, the
legitimate excuses for avoiding service as a judge, and so on.!3 One
fundamental distinction it introduced was between ‘statutory trials’
(indicia legitima) and ‘trials dependent on magisterial office’ (indicia quae
im perio continentur). ‘Statutory trials’ included only suits brought at Rome
between two Roman citizens, provided these were to be decided by a
single iadex; the grant of such suits by the praetor remained effective for
eighteen months, after which it lapsed if the index had not yet reached a
verdict. By contrast, all other private lawsuits lapsed if they were
undecided at the end of the granting magistrate’s term of office.!¢
Although this distinction probably resulted from delays in handling the
large volume of lawsuits brought at Rome, its consequence was to give
the urban praetor’s court a special standing among all jurisdictions in the
empire.

Perhaps at about the same date Augustus began granting to certain
jurists the right to issue formal opinions on law (responsa) that were based
on his own authority. Unfortunately, the two main sources on the ius
respondendi are confused and difficult to interpret, and scholars have not
reached consensus on the nature and operation of the right.!5 The
likeliest view is that jurists with the ius respondendi could submit responsa
that had very great, if not determinative, weight in settling questions of

) See Kaser 1966 (F 661) 115~16, with further literature; for references, see Acta 1945 (B 1) 143~
8. The Lex Irnitana, a Flavian municipal charter from Spain, provides major new information on
this law; it also may show that the Lex Iulia was supplemented by a second law extending Roman
procedure to municipalities, see Gai. Inst. 1v.30, with Gonzalez 1986 (B 235) 150.

12 Gai. Inst. 1v.30-1, 35. Extraordinary cognition also comes to be an exception; see below,
Section VI.

13, See Suet. Aug. 32.3; Dio t1v.18.3; Modestinus, D 48.14.1.4; Frag. Vat. 197-8.

4 Gai. Inst. 1v.103~9.

15 Pomponius, D 1.2.2.48—50; Gai. Inst. 1.7. For a summary of scholarly views, see Schiller 1978
(F 689) 297-312; Wieacker 1985 (F 706). It is uncertain when the right was introduced, but Labeo
probably had it (Gell. N-A xim.10.1).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AUGUSTUS’ REFORMS 963

law within trials; even if the responsa of two such jurists diverged, the
judge had to choose between them. Augustus is said to have created the
right ‘in order to increase the authority of law’,'© which implies that
hitherto juristic opinions had not always been decisive in private trials.
At the same time, however, the imperial grant of a sus respondendi isolated
a privileged group of recognized legal experts, on whose authoritative
opinions litigants would inevitably rely if possible; thus the emperor
avoided having to determine questions of private law himself.

Augustus apparently granted the ius respondendi only to jurists who had
also entered the Roman Senate; this probably remained normal through-
out the first century A.p., though Tiberius bestowed the right also on the
eminent equestrian jurist Masurius Sabinus.!” It is likely, but cannot be
proven, that almost all early classical jurists whose views are cited or
reported in the Digest had received the ius respondendi. Grant of the right
served the emperor in several ways: it increased legal security by limiting
the number of jurists allowed to state law authoritatively, while
simultaneously creating anew means of imperial patronage and reinforc-
ing the link between the jurists and the empire’s governing elite in the
Senate. A jurist lacking the sas respondendi could still issue opinions, but
his responsa were backed only by his own knowledge and personal
authority;!8 such a jurist would inevitably tend to take his lead from
more privileged jurists.

Augustus’ thoughtful procedural reforms set the stage for classical
Roman jurisprudence — which is, in essence, a protracted intellectual
discussion of legal norms and principles conducted within a smail circle
of skilled professionals. The /ex Iulia de iudiciis privatis gave Roman
procedure a coherence and rationality it had not previously possessed,
and thus narrowed and defined the framework of juristic discussion; the
tus respondend: ensured that the best product of juristic discussion would
have direct and immediate effect within the judicial system. The jurists
thus came to occupy a commanding position in relation to the judicial
system, even though they were not formally part of it. In the long history
of Western law, this astonishing situation has seldom been replicated.

Yet almost at once the process began whereby the carefully balanced
Augustan procedural system would be first eroded and then supplanted,
although not before the Roman jurists had introduced changes which
were permanently to affect Western understanding of what law is.

'6 Pomponius, D 1.2.2.49: ‘ut maior juris auctoritas haberetur’.

'7 Pomponius, D 1.2.2.48, 50; cf. Kunkel 1967 (F 666a) 272-89.
18 Cf. Pomponius, D 1.2.2.49 (citing Hadrian); however, the meaning of this passage is uncertain.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

964 21. EARLY CLASSICAL PRIVATE LAW

III. LABEO

Servius Sulpicius Rufus, the great republican jurist, died in 43 B.c., while
on a diplomatic mission for the Senate.!9 He left behind him a large and
thriving juristic community, which dominated Roman private law until
well into Augustus’ reign; yet it lacked a leader comparable to Servius in
influence and power of mind. During the triumviral period (43—31 B.C.),
Servius’ numerous students concentrated on compiling and editing their
teacher’s writings and responsa; the most prominent of these students was
Alfenus Varus, one of Octavian’s early partisans, who earned for his
loyalty a consulate (39 B.c.) and a public funeral.2° The only student of
Servius who gained a reputation as an innovator was A. Ofilius, who
wrote the earliest extended commentaries on the Praetor’s Edict and on
the corpus of existing statutes;2! Ofilius remained a lifelong egues despite
his former close ties to Julius Caesar. Ofilius also was the teacher of Q.
Aelius Tubero, who turned to law only around the age of forty after a
disappointing career as an orator; Tubero was later regarded as the most
erudite of the early Augustan jurists in both public and private law,
although his influence was diminished by his crabbed, archaizing
prose.22 Two eminent older jurists also survived into the early Princi-
pate: A. Cascellius, already very aged but still ferociously independent in
his political views, and C. Trebatius Testa, Cicero’s sometime protégé,
who like Ofilius remained an eques.24

Except for Alfenus, the early Augustan jurists were characterized by
political caution or even quietism; they left almost no mark on the
momentous events of their times. For his part, Augustus did not seek to
bind them more closely to the new regime; the story that he offered a

19 See esp. Cic. Phil. 1x; Pomponius, D 1.2.2.43. Pomponius’ Encbiridion, poorly preserved in D
1.2.2, is the only surviving history of the juristic movement; on its form and purpose, see Nort 1976
(F 672). The work dates to ¢. A.D. 149.

2 Pomponius, D 1.2.2.44; Scholiast on Hor. Sat. 1.5.130. The public funeral was perhaps
accorded by Augustus. Alfenus, who cites no jurist after Servius, seems not to have participated in
early Augustan discussions. Fragments: Lenel 1889 (B 109) 1 37-54 (nineteen citations; eighty-one
fragments from later epitomators). On the early Augustan jurists, see Bauman 1983 (F 642) 66-136
(speculative).

21 Pomponius, D 1.2.2.44 (as emended). Fragments: Lenel 1889 (B 109) 1 795-804 (fifty-eight
citations, usually through Labeo). Ofilius survived until at least 20 B.c., since he taught C. Ateius
Capito (cos. suff. a.p. 5): cf. n. 28.

2 Pomponius, D 1.2.2.46. Fragments: Lenel 1889 (B 109) 11 377-80 (thirteen citations, often
through Labeo). On the family: Syme 1986 (4 93) 305-6. Tubero also wrote an annalistic history of
Rome.

23 Cascellius, a pupil of Q. Mucius, was quaestor by 73, but advanced no further; cf. Pomponius,
D 1.2.2.45 (as emended). His independence: Val. Max. v1.2.12; Quint. Inst. v.3.87; Macrob. Sat.
11.6.1. Fragments: Lenel 1889 (B 109) 1 107—8 (thirteen citations, usually through Labeo).

* Pomponius, D. 1.2.2.45. Fragments: Lenel 1889 (B 109) 11 343—5 2 (eighty-seven citations, often
through Labeo). Trebatius was close to Julius Caesar: Cic. Far. vi1.14.2; Plut. Cie. 37.3; but cf. Suet.
In. 78.1. Caesar probably made him an eques: Bauman 1985 (F 642) 126-7, 134-5.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LABEO 965

consulate to Cascellius (who declined it) is of doubtful authenticity.
None of these jurists is expressly associated even with the drafting of
major Augustan legislation, although Trebatius, at least, survived long
enough to comment on some of it.

Our impression of early Augustan jurisprudence derives mainly from
the writings of M. Antistius Labeo, who was probably active as a jurist
by about 30 B.c. A student of Trebatius, Labeo none the less closely
attended the other senior jurists of his time, and he often reports on their
agreement or disagreement concerning various technical questions.??
Labeo clearly regards Trebatius and Ofilius, and to a lesser extent
Cascellius, as constituting the juristic mainstream, while Tubero is more
commonly aberrant in his views; but Labeo presents a general picture of
consolidation and regulated contentiousness, with little in the way of
major methodological or substantive innovation. However, by about 20
B.C. the generation of republican survivors was yielding before a new
and more vigorous generation. According to literary and juristic
sources, much of Augustus’ reign was marked by the dominance and
rivalry of two jurists: Labeo and C. Ateius Capito.28

Their rivalry was personal and political. Unlike their elders, both
Labeo and Capito were politically active, but they diverged sharply in
their attitude to the new regime. Capito, the grandson of a Sullan
centurion and son of an obscure senator of praetorian rank, was widely
considered a sycophantic courtier who prostituted his talent and
knowledge in the service of his imperial masters.2° Labeo, by contrast,
was the son of a jurist who had conspired in Caesar’s assassination and
committed suicide after Philippi; Labeo himself soon acquired a repu-
tation for his prickly insistence on constitutional details, often to the
government’s momentary discomfiture. After Labeo’s death, Capito
wrote of his rival that he had been driven by his excessive, foolhardy

25 Pomponius, D 1.2.2.45; cf. Syme 1980 (F 697), but also Bauman 1985 (F 642) 120-2. On
Augustus’ relations with the jurists, see Wieacker 1969 (F 705).

% Cf. Paul, D 4.3.18.4 (on the 4x Iulia de ind. priv. of 17 B.c.); Paul, D 32.29 pr. (on the lex Iulia de
marit. ord. of 18 B.C.). A responsum concerning Maecenas’ doubtful divorce from Terentia ¢. 15 B.C.:
Javolenus D 24.1.64; consultation by Augustus (below, at n. 82) ¢. 20 B.c., see E. Champlin, ZPE 62
(1986) 249-51, more plausible than the traditional date of a.p. 4.

7 Pomponius, D 1.2.2.47; on his expertise in language studies, see Gell. N.A xut.10.1, with Stein
1971 (F 694). Borne. 50, Labeo entered the Senate by 18 (Dio Lrv.15.7-8) and died late in Augustus’
reign (below, n. 44); the family stems from Ligures Baebiani in Samnium, cf. Kunkel 1967 (F 6664)
32-4, 114. Fragments: Lenel 1889 (B 109) 1 299-315, 501-58 (367 citations and 109 fragments — more
than all other Augustan jurists combined). Still invaluable on Labeo is Pernice 1873-1900 (F 678).

% On the rivalry: Tac. Aan. 11.75; Pomponius, D 1.2.2.47 (noting that Capito was taught by
Ofilius). Born ¢. 45, Capito entered the Senate by 17 B.c. (Zosimus, 11.4.2: the legal date for the
Secular Games) and died in a.p. 22 (Tac. Aan m1.75). Of municipal origin: Kunkel 1967 (F 666a)
114-15. On Augustus’ consilinm in A.D. 13: Bowman 1976 (B 367) 154. Fragments: Strzelecki 1967 (B
172) (almost all from antiquarian works; he is cited once in the Digest).

29 Capito’s ancestors: Tac. Aan. 111.75.1. His sycophancy, esp. to Tiberius: sbid. 111.70, 75; Suet.
Gramm. 22; but see also Rogers 1964 (F 682).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

966 21. EARLY CLASSICAL PRIVATE LAW

passion for /ibertas.© Augustus, keen to extend patronage to this new
generation of jurists, offered both men a suffect consulate; and when
Labeo, pleading the press of his legal studies, refused the honour,
Augustus returned the snub (so we are told) by advancing the date of
Capito’s consulate (A.D. 5).3! Literary sources on the two men are
obviously biased by their typically senatorial outlook: contempt for the
fawning Capito, admiration for the gruff and independent Labeo.

Jurists saw the rivalry quite differently. As Pomponius states, Capito
clung narrowly to received views on law; but Labeo, more self-confident
and daring, ‘undertook numerous innovations’ on the basis of his
mastery of other branches of learning.>2 This judgment, which may seem
innocuous enough, has a dramatic consequence in the juristic tradition:
Capito is all but ignored by later jurists, whereas Labeo is cited more
often than any jurist before the high classical period, his voluminous
writings are frequently annotated or edited by later jurists, and his
opinion is usually treated with great respect even when it fails to carry
the day.33 In short, Labeo is a commanding figure, the first indisputably
‘classical’ jurist.

To be sure, it is unclear what Pomponius means in saying that Labeo
‘undertook numerous innovations’. The juristic tradition survives so
fragmentarily that legal historians find it difficult to determine whether
Labeo’s position on a given question represents genuine innovation
with respect to his predecessors. In any case, what modern scholars have
chiefly discerned in Labeo’s fragments are the traces of a defter and more
conscious methodological approach to law, which Labeo may well have
pioneered.* A description of this method is not easy since it must be
based on evidence haphazardly preserved, but the following is thought
to be more or less accurate.

First, Labeo stresses the importance of solving legal problems, if
possible, through direct interpretation of fixed texts — either general
norms such as can be found in statutes or edictal provisions, or self-

30 Labeo’s ancestors: Kunkel 1967 (F 666a) 32-4, 114. His independence: Tac. Aan. 111.75; Suet.
Aug. $4; Dio Ltv.15.7-8. Capito on Labeo: Gell. NA xiti.12.1-4.

4 Tac. Ann. 1.75.2; Pomponius, D 1.2.2.47 (diverging on details). Pomponius also notes that
Labeo spent half of each year ‘with students’ (‘cum studiosis’) in Rome: their names are lost.

32 Pomponius, D 1.2.2.47. N6rr 1981 (F 674), discusses the paradox that the politically
‘traditionalist’? Labeo was the greater legal innovator. Capito’s moral reputation may have adversely
affected his standing among later jurists; compare the disreputable jurist C. Caninius Rebilus (cos.
suff. a.p. 37; cf. Tac. Ann. x111.30), not cited in the Digest.

33 On Labeo’s fragments, see n. 27. Labeo’s Posteriores were excerpted by Proculus and
Javolenus, annotated by Aristo and Paul; the Pithena were annotated by Paul. Examples of later
respect for Labeo: Javolenus, D 40.7.39.4; Ulpian, D 8.5.2.3; Callistrarus, D 49.14.1.1. Paul’s acerbic
notae may be a youthful work.

%4 Pomponius, D 1.2.2.47; ‘plurima innovare instituit’. See Seidl 1971 (F 691); Stein 1972 (F 695)
9-16.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LABEO 967

imposed norms contained in private documents like contracts or wills.
Further, Labeo assumes that the wording of such a text is intended to
express its author’s intent fully, that the author’s intent can be presumed
rational, and that the author seeks primarily to communicate this intent
(rather than, say, to express himself); therefore Labeo is usually reluctant
to advance beyond the ordinary, ‘objective’ meaning of the words used
in the text, even if the result is arguably harsh.35 Two examples from
contract law may illustrate this method of reasoning. If a contract clause
clearly disadvantages one party, Labeo none the less enforces the clause
if this interpretation corresponds with the apparent or ‘objective’
content of their agreement (id quod actum est); only if the overall
agreement is unclear does Labeo resort to the externally more plausible
interpretation of it. On the other hand, Labeo is also willing to construe
an incurably ambiguous text against its author if he could have expressed
himself more clearly.2* Labeo’s interpretations are not necessarily
narrow, but they almost always are closely controlled by the text itself.

Second, if no text is available and law must be created, Labeo often
relies on his belief that legal rules and institutions should be rationally
purposive in their relation to society. This belief leads him to search for
supervening principles that can be used to resolve doubtful cases. For
example, if a minor child is old enough to understand his actions, should
he be held liable for his wrongful damage to property (damnum iniuria
datum)? Labeo says yes, simply because such a child is also held liable for
his acts of theft (furtum); if law is rational, the child should be liable for
both delicts unless there is a clear basis for distinguishing them. Labeo’s
fragments frequently display similar examples of reasoning by analogy.2”
Labeo’s use of analogy is coupled with his insistence on sharp normative
definition of legal institutions, so as to prevent their becoming blurred in
practice.8 For instance, when a legatee is left the ‘use’ (sus) of a farm,
Labeo sets down clear rules allowing the legatee to bar the farm’s owner
(and, by analogy, the owner’s domestic slaves) from residing on the
farm; but Labeo does not allow him to prevent the owner’s slaves or
tenants from exploiting the farm; likewise, the legatee may use storage
rooms for wine and olive oil, and may also forbid the owner from using
them.3? Labeo effortlessly generates these elaborate rules out of an

35 A good example of close edictal interpretation is Ulpian, D 4.2.9 pr.: according to Labeo, the
interdicts unde vi require physical, not just psychological violence (contrast Cic. Caecin. 46, 49).
Compare: Ulpian, D 9.2.9 pr., 17.4.1.5. If the result is too harsh, Labeo recommends that the Edict’s
wording be changed: Ulpian, D 42.1.4.3; or that the praetor use discretion in enforcing it: Paul, D
2.4.11, 3-3.43-6; Ulpian, D 4.8.15. Cf. Horak 1969 (PF 658) 194-205, 212-16.

% Javolenus, D 18.1.77; Paul, D 18.1.21; both citing Labeo. Compare, on wills, Labeo, D 32.30
pr. * Ulpian, D 9.2.5.2; cf. Horak 1969 (F 658) 242-61.

38 Martini 1966 (F 670) 137-48. » Ulpian, D 7.8.10.4.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

968 21. EARLY CLASSICAL PRIVATE LAW

implied definition of ‘use’, which his discussion is intended to illustrate;
he obviously recognizes that, when vested property interests may
conflict, certainty is all important.

Third, Labeo’s decisions are often apparently influenced by an
underlying belief that, in principle, no person should draw unjustified
enrichment, even innocently, at another’s expense, and that procedural
law should if possible be construed to prevent this from occurring.
Thus, for instance, if I lose a borrowed object and then pay the lender its
value, and the lender later recovers the object, Labeo rules that I may sue
the lender on the contract in order to recover (as the lender wishes) either
the object or the payment for it. Labeo seemingly arrives at this decision
through simple construction of procedural law, avoiding the fiction that
the lender and I had ever ‘tacitly’ agreed on this outcome. Likewise,
Labeo rules that a plaintiff should have an action on fraud (actio do/i) not
only if, as the Praetor’s Edict expressly provides, no other remedy is
actually available, but also if it is unclear whether another remedy is
available.*! In this context, it is no surprise that Labeo makes some of the
earliest juristic decisions that impose on sellers a warranty of merchanta-
bility for the goods they sell, regardless of whether they are aware of
major defects in these goods.‘2

Labeo’s various approaches to law are obviously not always compat-
ible with one another, but he maintains an impressively productive
tension between them. His influence with later jurists may thus result less
from his specific substantive innovations than from the principled rigour
of his decisions. In any case, his dominance of the Augustan era is so
complete that his contemporaries are thrown into all but total obscurity.
Fabius Mela, for example, was an able and penetrating jurist, to judge
_ from surviving citations of his commentary on the Edict. It was Mela,
for example, who concocted the famous hypothetical case of the slave
whose throat was cut when an athlete’s carelessly thrown ball struck the
hand of a razor-wielding barber; this hypothetical case brilliantly
illustrates several contrasting features of the law governing wrongful
damage to property, including proximate cause and contributory negli-
gence.*3 But Mela remains a shadowy figure within the juristic tradition;
he may or may not have possessed the ius respondendi, but he was unable to
compete on even footing with his more eminent contemporary, and
Pomponius, in his history of Roman law, does not even mention Mela.

# Paul, D 13.6.17.5. “| Ulpian, D 4.3.7.3. 42 Pomponius, D 19.1.64; 19.2.19.1.

4 Ulpian, D 9.2.11 pr. Fragments: Lenel 1889 (B 109) 1 691-6 (thirty-three citations). Mela’s date
and background (both uncertain): Kunkel 1967 (F 666a) 116. Other contemporary jurists, like
Blaesus and Vitellius, are just names.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PROCULIANS AND SABINIANS 969

IV. PROCULIANS AND SABINIANS

Labeo’s dominant position among the jurists ended only with his death,
probably late in Augustus’ reign.*4 No jurist could take his place, and in
fact the reign of Tiberius (14-37) saw the more or less formal split of
Rome’s major jurists into two rival ‘schools’: the Proculians and the
Sabinians or Cassians. This division would endure well into the second
century; but its nature and the reasons for it remain controversial.4 It is
even unclear what our sources mean by ‘school’ (scho/a or secta) in this
context: to what extent the two schools had an independent corporate
existence, where and how often they met, how they recruited members
and selected leaders, what role they played in legal education, and so
on.“ Later jurists concentrate on recording their disputes concerning
particular legal questions; these disputes are reported not only in the
Digest and other post-classical sources, but also in Gaius’ Institutes.*7
The emperor Tiberius, himself keenly interested in all branches of
learning, extended political patronage to both schools; and whatever
their earlier qualms, jurists now no longer declined the opportunity to
obtain the consulate.4® The Proculians owe their name to the brilliant
jurist Proculus, who has been plausibly identified with Cn. Acerronius
Proculus (cos. ord. 37).49 However, Proculus did not derive from a
socially prominent family, and during most of the Julio-Claudian era the
Proculian school was also nominally led by two members of a far more
influential family: first by M. Cocceius Nerva (cos. suff. 21/2), Tiberius’
close friend who committed suicide in 33, and then by his homonymous
son (cos. suff. 40), the emperor Nerva’s father, who together with
Proculus presided over the school from 33 until late in Nero’s reign.

“ Labeo may have commented on the Lex Papia Poppaea of a.p. 9 (cf. Labeo, D 40.7.42), but
receives no obituary from his admirer Tacitus (whose Annales begin with Augustus’ death in 14).

45 See Schiller 1978 (F 689) 327-30, summarising the scholarship. In any case, the division is not
likely to be based on cither political or philosophical disagreement.

Cf. Liebs 1976 (F 668) 215-42 (very speculative).

47 Liebs 1976 (F 668) 243-75, lists known controversies, not all of them certain; see also Falchi
1981 (F 651) 263-8.

4 Tiberius, who preferred consuls distinguished in civilian arts (Tac. Aan. 1v.6.2), also gave a
consulate to the jurist Caninius Rebilus (see n. 32). Jurists serve him also in overseeing Rome’s water
supply: Capito from 13 to 22, the elder Nerva from 24 to 33 (Frontin. Ag. 2.102); see Syme 1986 (a
95) 220-5.

49 On Proculus, see Pomponius, D 1.2.2.50, with Kunkel 1967 (F 666A) 123-9; Mayer-Maly 1957
(F 671); but also Honoré 1962 (F 656). Born ¢. 20 B.c., he probably lived until ¢. a.p. 60, when
Pegasus succeeded him as head of the school (Pomponius, 5 3); Proculus may have been a pupil of
Labeo, but wrote harshly critical notes on his writings and often disagrees with him. Fragments:
Lene] 1889 (B 109) m 159-84 (179 citations); cf. Krampe 1970 (F 665), for a close analysis of his
methods.

% The family, from Narnia in Umbria, first rose to notice in the triumviral period: Kunkel 1967 (F

666s) 120-30. Fragments: pater, Lenel, 1889 (B 109) 1 787—g0 (thirty-five citations); /i/iss, ibid. 791-2
(eight citations).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

97° 21. EARLY CLASSICAL PRIVATE LAW

Proculus, clearly a more brilliant jurist than either of the Nervae, appears
to have relied on their prestige in order to secure a hearing for his views.

The history of the other school is similar but more complex. Masurius
Sabinus, its first leader, was not by birth a member of Rome’s status elite;
indeed, at first he allegedly supported himself through honoraria from
his students. At the advanced age of fifty Sabinus finally entered the
equestrian order, doubtless through the patronage of Tiberius who also
granted him the sas respondendi — the first time that a non-senator had
received this honour.5! Sabinus’ writings, above all his brief but
authoritative treatise on the ius civile, enjoyed very great eminence among
later jurists, who frequently commented simply ‘on Sabinus’ (ad Sabi-
num).52 However, Sabinus evidently shared leadership with one of his
students, the extremely well-placed aristocrat C. Cassius Longinus (cos.
suff. 30), whose direct ancestors included the jurists Servius and
Tubero. (This is a particularly clear example of the tendency of
jurisprudence to ‘run in families’.) In early sources the socially promi-
nent Cassius is usually described as founding the ‘Cassian’ school
(Cassiani); but the members of the school eventually came to be called
‘Sabinians’ (Sabiniani) after Sabinus, whom later jurists esteem more
highly.54 Both men survived into the 6os and probably ran the school
jointly.

Since the Renaissance, legal historians have sought to isolate the
underlying legal basis of the numerous doctrinal disputes between the
two schools. A half-century ago it was widely argued that their
differences resulted in large part just from the separate operation of the
two schools; divergent solutions to various legal problems were formu-
lated in each school and then transmitted from teacher to student,
without a consistent pattern of larger dogmatic disagreement.>> There is
doubtless a measure of truth in this view. However, more recent scholars
have re-emphasized a methodological line dividing the Proculians from
the Sabinians.5° According to Pomponius, the origin of the school

51 Pomponius, D 1.2.2.48—50 (a troubled passage); cf. Kunkel 1967 (F 666A) 119-20. Sabinus,
who may stem from Verona, was probably born ¢. 25 B.c. and survived into the reign of Nero
(below, n. 66). Fragments: Lenel 1889 (B 109) 11 187-216 (236 citations).

52 Sabinus’ three-book ius civile was annotated by Aristo, then commented on by Pomponius (in
thirty-five books), Paul (sixteen) and Ulpian (fifty-one, but incomplete).

53 Pomponius, D 1.2.2.51. Cassius is a collateral descendant of Caesar’s assassin: Syme 1986 (a 95)
Table XXIV. Born c. 5 B.c., he enjoyed a distinguished political career and is prominent in Tacitus’
Annales, cf. Nérr 1984 (F 676), and also Norr 1983 (F 675) on the speech in Tac. Aan. x1v.43—4. His
character: Tac. Ann. xtt.12.1. He studied with Sabinus (D 4.8.19.2); on his death, see n. 70.
Fragments: Lenel 1889 (B 109) 1 109-26 (143 Citations).

4 Cassiani: Pliny, Ep. vi1.24.8; Pomponius, D 1.2.2.5 2; ef a/. The school is called Sabiniani first by
Marcellus (cf. D 24.1.11.3), and often thereafter.

55 For instance, Schulz 1946 (F 690) 119-23; and so still Schiller 1978 (F 689) 329-30, with
bibliography.

5 Stein 1972 (F 695); Liebs 1976 (F 668) 275-82; Falchi 1981 (F G51); Scacchetti 1984 (F 688).
These authors differ in many details, implying that reconstruction is very difficult.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PROCULIANS AND SABINIANS 971

disputes was the earlier rivalry between Labeo and Capito; the two
schools simply increased their differences, with the Proculians imitating
Labeo and the Sabinians Capito.5’? And in fact the Proculians do
frequently rely on an approach to law that somewhat resembles Labeo’s
principled rationality; by contrast, the Sabinians often adopt a freer,
more heterodox position, though whether they are following Capito in
this respect is unclear.

Thus the Proculians, like Labeo, normally prefer close objective
interpretations of fixed texts, while the Sabinians allow interpretation
based on the author’s presumed ‘subjective’ intent. For example, if a
debtor promises by stipulation to make a payment within a fixed interval
of time, Sabinus holds that the creditor can claim payment on the first
day of the period, while Proculus and his school rule that the claim is not
legally effective until the entire period elapses.5® Similarly, if someone
promises by stipulation to pay money to both the promisee and a third
party, both schools recognize that, owing to absence of privity, the third
party acquires no enforceable right through the contract; but whereas
the Sabinians hold that the entire payment is owed to the promissee, the
Proculians rule that only half of it is owed to him and the rest of the
promise is unenforceable.5? The same differences recur in interpreting
the Edict; for example, if the parties reach a settlement before the iudex
renders judgment, the Sabinians require the ixdex then to absolve the
defendant in every case, but the Proculians require him to condemn in all
trials not based on bona fides. There are numerous similar examples of
these contrasting methods of interpretation, both for statutory norms
and for private instruments.

Likewise, the Proculians tend to uphold Labeo’s rational conceptual-
ism, while the Sabinians take a looser approach to law. Probably the
most famous example of this difference concerns the law of sale (emptio
venditio): the Sabinians hold that barter, the promised exchange of an
object for an object, is a form of sale and enforceable as such; but the
Proculians deny this and point out that since there is no money price,
there is no clear way to distinguish buyer from seller.6! Similarly, the
Proculians often recognize the force of logical analogy in law, while the
Sabinians play it down. For instance, the Proculians rule that the onset of
puberty (and hence legal majority) should be legally presumed as of an
age that is fixed for each sex, whereas the Sabinians insist on a physical
inspection of boys even though this practice had long since been
abandoned, for moral reasons, in the case of girls.62 Again, if a legacy is

57 Pomponius, D 1.2.2.48, 52. There is no evidence that Labeo himself founded a school, or that
he taught Nerva peter or Proculus.

58 Venuleius, D 45.1.128 pr.; cf. Papinian, D 45.1.115.2. 5) Gai. Inst. 111.103.

8 Gai. Inst. 1.196; Ulpian, Lib. Sing. Reg. 11.28.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

972 21. EARLY CLASSICAL PRIVATE LAW

left subject to an impossible condition (e.g. ‘pay ten to Titius if he
touches the sky’), the Sabinians read the legacy as if the condition had not
been written, but the Proculians void the legacy on the ground that a
contractual stipulation subject to an impossible condition is also void.%

By contrast, the Sabinians use analogy in a looser, more equitable
fashion that arguably better captures the spirit of Labeo’s style; their
position on barter as a form of sale is a good example. Sabinus’ expansive
attitudes are at their most aggressive in the area of delict; for instance, he
grants the direct Aquilian action for wrongful damage even when the
plaintiff’s property was not physically harmed (e.g. the defendant struck
coins out of the plaintiff’s hand and they fell down a sewer), and he also
extends the action on theft even to the unauthorized sale of land.
Neither view was received by later jurists.

By and large, the Proculians emerge as the ‘better lawyers’, the
Sabinians as the more flexible ones. Two central strains of Roman
jurisprudence, formalism and equity, are momentarily divided from one
another. However, in a number of respects it is misleading to lay too
great a weight on these school controversies. First, even though the
record of their controversies is incomplete, the school disputes seem to
have centred mainly on technical details and do not necessarily imply a
radically different stance on the nature and purposes of Roman private
law. Second, the Proculians and Sabinians may not have represented all
jurists then practising; the obscure jurist Atilicinus was clearly a
Proculian, but other Julio-Claudian jurists may well have operated
independently. Third, by no means all of the attested controversies can
be easily explained through a simple dichotomy in legal method; the
theoretical basis of many disputes is extremely obscure. Fourth, the
schools were in any case unable to enforce a narrow dogmatism on their
members; the view of one school is not uncommonly adopted by one or
more members of the other.®

Finally, the school debates must also be understood within the context
of the Roman judicial system, in which a iudex, if confronted by

-dissenting responsa from two authorized jurists, was free to apply the
opinion that seemed to him more plausible.§’? Juristic controversies,

63 Gai. Inst. 111.98, who admits that the Sabinian rule is hard to explain.

See, respectively, Ulpian, D 9.2.27.31; and Gell. NA x1.18.13, with Gai. Inst. 11.51.

65 Fragments of Atilicinus: Lenel 1889 (B 109) 1 71-4 (twenty-four citations, often with Proculus
or Nerva filius); see also esp. Proculus, D 23.4.17, citing a letter from Atilicinus. Minicius may have
been a student of Sabinus (cf. Julian, D 12.1.22); his writings were excerpted by Julian. Little or
nothing is known of the jurists C. Caninius Rebilus (cf. n. 32), Longinus (pr. under Pa
Cartilius, and Servilius.

& Liebs 1976 (F 668) 210-11. Individual schoo! jurists may also take extreme or eccentric
positions; e.g. the view of Nerva fi/ixs on the physical nature of possession (Paul, D 42.1.1.1, 3, 14,
22, etc.).

67 Gai. Inst. 1.7 (citing a rescript of Hadrian); so already Cic. Caecin. 69. The index is thus not free
to create his own law.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LEGAL WRITING 973

whether or not they arose through school debate, will have tended in
practice to increase the flexibility of law, at any rate until one or another
opinion prevailed and became ‘the law we use’ (sus quo utimur).

The founders of the two schools had already achieved eminence under
Tiberius; they continued to dominate Roman jurisprudence during the
reigns of Caligula (37-41), Claudius (41-54), and Nero (54-68). Rela-
tions with these emperors did not always run smoothly. The demented
Caligula reportedly threatened to revoke all previous grants of the ius
respondendi, and Claudius drove the jurists into the shade by wilfully
interfering with the independent administration of justice.® Still, Sabi-
nus, Cassius and Proculus, and probably the younger Nerva as well,
survived into Nero’s reign.®? The politically powerful Cassius held
important positions under all three emperors, but in 65 Nero relegated
him to Sardinia because of his allegedly suspect political views; Cassius
was recalled by Vespasian in 69, but died soon thereafter.7° As the great
Julio-Claudian jurists passed from the scene, the way was cleared for a
new generation.

V. LEGAL WRITING AND EDUCATION

Almost without exception, the attested writings of first-century jurists
are directed primarily toward other jurists; these writings thus have an
austere format that elevates technical discussion of rules and ‘cases’
above the didactic exposition of broad principles.?! Two major types of
juristic literature are attested. The first is the extended commentary on a
set text: above all, the Urban Praetor’s Edict (by Labeo, Mela, Sabinus
and probably Plautius as well), but also the Twelve Tables (Labeo) and
the edicts of the peregrine praetor (Labeo) and of the curule aediles
(Caelius Sabinus). Such commentaries assemble and interpret all law
pertinent to each provision of the object text. The second type is
‘problem-oriented’, assembling decisions on a wide range of legal
questions; these writings may take the form of collected responsa (Labeo,
Sabinus) or of disputes and investigations (Labeo, Capito, Proculus,
Sabinus and Fufidius).

In addition to these basic types, some jurists devote monographs to
particular areas of law; attested examples are Sabinus on theft and the
younger Nerva on usucapion. Jurists also frequently develop law by

8 Caligula: Suet. Calig. 34.2 (meaning disputed). Claudius: Sen. Apocol. 12.2; and below, at n. go.

® Sabinus comments on an s¢ of Nero (from a.p. 55 or 60): Gai. Inst. 1.218. Pegasus, consul
probably in 76, cannot have succeeded Proculus much before 60: Pomponius, D 1.2.2.5 3.

” Tac. Ann. xvi.7, 9.1; Pomponius, D 1.2.2.51-52. Cassius was reportedly almost blind at the
time of his exile.

1 Still essential on forms of juristic writing is Schulz 1946 (F 690) 141~261, despite its
dogmatism.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

974 21. EARLY CLASSICAL PRIVATE LAW

critically annotating the works of earlier jurists, especially those of
Labeo and Sabinus.

This literature is not designed to be readily accessible to non-jurists,
since it all presumes considerable prior knowledge of the institutions and
principles of Roman private law. Yet literary sources show that demand
was also growing among laymen for elementary handbooks.72 Although
there is no evidence that the more prominent first-century jurists offered
instruction to beginners,”3 the need for a handbook was provisionally
met by Sabinus’ three books on the ius civile, an authoritative summary of
the legal rules peculiar to Roman citizens. The arrangement and content
of this work owe much to earlier republican treatises; like them, it
introduces topics rather haphazardly and even omits some significant
areas of law. None the less, by the reign of Nero it was already a standard
elementary handbook.” So successful was it as a statement of the
‘civilistic system’ that in the following centuries it attracted lengthy
commentaries from Pomponius, Ulpian and Paul. Cassius’ treatise on the
ius civile, in at least ten books, was similar in arrangement to Sabinus’, but
much less influential except among jurists. Deliberately designed hand-
books for beginners (Institutiones) appear only in the second century A.D.,
contemporaneously with the emergence of professional law teachers.’5

VI. IMPERIAL INTERVENTION

Although classical private law is chiefly a juristic creation, the Roman
state did not surrender its power to create new legal norms through
statute (/ex). In the republican constitution, statutes were enacted
through popular assemblies (comitia) upon a magistrate’s initiative.
During the Empire legislation was always initiated by the emperor or by
a magistrate acting with his approval. Augustus had a large body of
statutes enacted, a portion of which affected significant change in the
private law of persons and succession; especially important is his
extensive ‘moral legislation’ encouraging marriage and childbirth,
imposing sanctions for adultery, and restricting testamentary manumis-
sions.’ Later Julio-Claudian emperors also utilized comitial statutes,

72 Cf. Petron. Sat. 46.7, who refers to /tbri rubricati (‘ced-letter’ handbooks). On legal education,
see Atkinson 1970 (F 639), stressing its very late development at Rome.

73 The pupils who ‘supported’ Sabinus (Pomponius, D 1.2.2.50: ‘a suis auditoribus sustenatus’)
were probably men like Cassius; there is no evidence that the Sabinians and Proculians saw
elementary instruction as a typical function of their ‘schools’.

7 Standard handbook: Pers. v.go (the rubricata Masuri, probably a glossed edition of Sabinus’ ixs
civile); cf. Fronto, Ep. ad M. Caes. 2.8.4(p. 31 vanden Hout); Arr. Epict. Diss. 1v.3.12. Astolfi 1983 (F
638) attempts to reconstruct Sabinus’ ixs civile.

78 Collections of legal maxims (regs/ce) first appear in the high classical period; the earliest is by
Neratius. The relation of these works to legal education remains uncertain.

% Imperial statutes are collected in Rotondi 1912 (F 685). On Augustus’ moral legislation, see
esp. Norr 1977 (F 673).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

INTERVENTION 975

especially in matters concerning status or succession; the controversial
social character of such laws may have made it desirable to obtain at least
the formality of a popular vote.

However, legislation through the cumbersome popular assemblies
soon became obsolete as new forms of law-making emerged to express a
centralized government. These new forms had administrative origin and
character; but they gradually created, alongside the ius civile (statutes,
praetorian procedure and juristic interpretation), a body of law intended
to supplement or replace older law. Eventually this law came to be called
the ‘new law’ (ius novum or ius extraordinarium).”

Already in the Republic the Senate had often issued advisory direc-
tives to be executed by magistrates; but in the early Empire the decrees of
the Senate (senatusconsulta) gradually emerged as a source of law in their
own right, though how and when this occurred remain controversial.78
During the first century A.D., senatusconsulta that significantly alter
private law still often direct magistrates to execute their provisions; but
in the following century this fiction is dropped and the Senate legislates
directly — though always upon the emperor’s initiative or at least with his
express approval.79

The emperor, himself a magistrate, also gradually came to enunciate
general legal norms through a variety of administrative channels,
including proclamations (edicta), judicial decisions (decreta), answers to
petitioners (rescripta), and instructions to other magistrates (mandata).®°
In the early second century these channels were formalized, and the
rescript system emerged as the major channel for imperial pronounce-
ments on private law; but earlier the channels have a much more casual,
almost ad hoc quality. However, even as early as Augustus the emperor is
occasionally described as proclaiming new rules of private law.8! In most
cases, he probably did so only after gathering advice from a specially
summoned ‘council’ (consilium) consisting mainly of jurists. One such
council, which led Augustus to approve the enforceability of codicils toa
Senator’s will, is described in Justinian’s Institutes.82 During the first

7 Cf. Kaser 1971 (F 662)1 199, 208-9; Schiller 1978 (F 689) 5 3 3—7. The terms appear in a technical
sense only from ¢. A.D. 150.

78 See Schiller 1978 (F 689) 456-62, with bibliography. Most known senatusconsulta are listed by
Talbert 1984 (D 77) 431-59.

79 Directives to magistrates are found in senatusconsulta from the reign of Augustus (the earliest:
A.D. 10) to as late as Vespasian. The legislative character of senatusconsulta is affirmed by Gai. Inst. 1.4
(acknowledging earlier uncertainty); cf. Papinian, D 1.1.7 pr., and Ulpian, D 1.3.9.

8 See Schiller 1978 (F 689) 480-306.

81 E.g., Ulpian, D 16.1.2 pr. (edicta of Augustus and Claudius prohibiting women from assuming
their husbands’ debts); Paul, D 28.2.26 (edictum of Augustus forbidding disinheritance of a son
serving as a soldier; later repealed).

82 Just. Inst. 1.25 pr. (Trebatius persuaded the emperor; on the date, see n. 26); compare sbid.
1.23.1, on Augustus’ recognition of informal bequests (fideicommissa). The consilinm principis is, in the
first century, an informal advisory gathering of the emperor’s ‘friends’; it acquires more formal
status only in the second century. See Crook 1955 (D 10); Amarelli 1983 (D 4); and Schiller 1978 (F
689) 466-74, summarising the controversy.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

976 21. EARLY CLASSICAL PRIVATE LAW

century the emperor’s legislative power may not yet have been recog-
nized de iure, as an express function of his office; but it clearly existed de
facto, and its importance steadily increased as the emperor’s consti-
tutional position was rationalized.%

The ius novum, insofar as it deviates significantly from older law, is
often associated with a new form of procedure ‘outside’ the normal
formulary system: extraordinary cognition (cognitio extra ordinem).™ In
the first century this new procedure still had a somewhat makeshift
character, as various elements of administrative process were loosely
combined. For example, when Augustus made informal testamentary
requests (fideicommissa) legally enforceable in some instances, he ordered
the consuls to supervise their implementation. Such fideicommissa proved
popular and soon became more generally enforceable; in order to ease
the burden on the consuls, Claudius created two new praetors (reduced
to one by Titus) who did nothing but handle them.® In other instances
the emperor relied on his own deputies; for example, Claudius gave legal
force to the decisions of his procurators.®

Procedure before judges who had been delegated by the emperor
differed markedly from the formulary system. Unlike the urban praetor,
these judges took a much more active role in summoning the defendant,
conducting the trial, determining the case and enforcing the verdict.8”
Unlike formulary procedure, which presumed a model in which adver-
sary proceedings led to the binding arbitration of disputes, extraordinary
cognition more resembled the inquisitorial procedure commonly asso-
ciated with modern Continental law.

Extraordinary cognition implies the power of the emperor to hear and
decide lawsuits, either personally or through delegates; Augustus and
his successors used this power extensively, although its constitutional
basis is once again elusive.88 In turn, delegation implies at least the
possibility of appeal (appellatio, provocatio) from the delegated judge toa
higher authority. Appeal is also attested as early as Augustus, and it

83 On the basis of the emperor’s power to issue norms, see recently Sargenti 1984 (F 687), with
literature. Not until the second century were imperial decisions recognized as sources of general
norms: Gai. Inst. 1.5; Papinian, D 1.1.7 pr.; Ulpian, D 1.4.1 pr.-1. Gualandi 1963 (F 654) 1, lists all
juristic references to legislation by emperors.

84 Kaser 1966 (F 661) 339-49. The expression does not occur in sources until the middle of the
second century A.D. -

85 See esp. Just. Inst. 11.23.1; Pomponius, D 1.2.2.32; with Kaser 1966 (F 661) 354-5; Rohle 1968
(F 683). The consuls continued to handle important cases: Pomponius, D 40.5.44.

8 Tac. Ann. xi1.60.1; Suet. Claud, 12.1. See in general Millar 1977 (A 59) 158-74.

8? Kaser 1966 (F 661) 371-409, based mainly on later sources. See also Jolowicz and Nicholas
1972 (F 660) 395-404; Buti 1982 (D 252).

88 See generally Kaser 1966 (F 661) 349-53; Millar 1977 (A $9) 507-37. Cf. Dio u1.19.6-7, a
garbled report of a law of 30 B.c. On Augustus, see esp. Val. Max. vit.7.3—4, 9.15 ext. 1. Caligula:
Dio t1x.18.1; Ath. 148d. Claudius: Sen. Apoco/. 7.4-5; Suet. Claud. 46; Dio Lx.28.6.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

INTERVENTION 977

seems to become steadily more frequent under later emperors.®° Further,
appeal was not confined, as might have been expected, only to extra-
ordinary cognition; already Augustus is reported to have quashed the
jurisdictional rulings of ‘ordinary’ magistrates, and Claudius and Domi-
tian went still further by reforming the verdicts of indices.

Extraordinary cognition is a considerable advance in procedural
rationality over formulary procedure; the ancient arbitrational system
gradually gave way before a system with more modern characteristics —a
striking instance of how legal modes of thought came gradually to
pervade the Roman judicial system. Nevertheless, although the elements
of this new system were in place by the first century a.p., formulary
procedure remained the dominant form of civil procedure for Roman
citizens throughout the empire (except in Egypt). Its continued pre-
eminence is reflected in the numerous procedural documents buried by
the ashes of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79, as well as in the writings of
first-century jurists who virtually ignore extraordinary cognition.

Another early imperial reform was also to be of lasting significance.
By the Lex Cincia of 204 B.c., judicial advocates had been forbidden to
accept honoraria for their services; Augustus reaffirmed this law,
although it was already being widely flouted. In a.p. 47, however,
Claudius had carried a senatusconsultum allowing payment of up to 10,000
sesterces to advocates; this measure was apparently confirmed, though
with some restrictions, when Nero became emperor.” Ancient sources
usually regard the change with distaste, because it eroded the position of
oratory as a gentleman’s pursuit. However, the possibility of pay
undoubtedly encouraged an enlargement in the corps of orators, so that
their services became more widely and easily available to litigants; and
pay also promoted a more professional attitude on the part of advocates
in their argument of cases. In Tacitus’ Dia/ogus (set in the early 70s),
speakers lament the displacement of lush oratory by legalism in the
private courts;93 what they basically resent is the emergence of truly
professional lawyers, a major step in the rationalization of Roman civil
procedure.

8 Kaser, 1966 (F 661) 397-465; Litewski 1982 (F 669) 3 56-370. Of course, the emperor could also
delegate the decisions of appeals; cf. Suet. Aug. 33.3. Nero allowed appeals from private judges to
the Senate: Suet. Ner. 17; Tac. Ann. xiv.28.1.

% Augustus: Val. Max. vit.7.3-4. Claudius: Suet. Claud. 14. Domitian: idem, Dom. 8.1. By
contrast, Caligula refused to allow appeals from republican magistrates: Suet. Calig. 16.2.

% See Bove 1979 (B 212) 123-6; also Bove 1984 (B 213). For a survey of surviving documents on
private law, see Schiller 1978 (F 689) 86-8.

% Augustus: Dio tiv.18.2; cf. Gell. x1t.12. Claudius: Tac. Ann. x1.6—7. Nero: ibid. xitt.5.1; Suet.
Ner. 17; cf. Pliny, Ep. v.9.4, and in general Ulpian, D 50.13.1.10-13. Ancient reactions: e.g., Quint.
Inst, x.7.8-12; Mart. vitt.16—17.

% Tac. Dial. xix.5—xX.2, XXXIX.1-}.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

978 21. EARLY CLASSICAL PRIVATE LAW

VII. THE FLAVIAN JURISTS

Probably even before Nero’s overthrow in 68, the two juristic schools
had changed leadership. The new heads, both closely associated with
Vespasian, enjoyed little prestige within the later juristic tradition.
Caelius Sabinus (cos. suff. 69), who headed the Sabinians, is all but
ignored by later jurists. His Proculian counterpart, Pegasus (cos. suff.
76?), fares only somewhat better; despite his reputation among contem-
poraries for vast learning, he is known to history mainly from Juvenal’s
biting description of his complacent behaviour while serving as Domi-
tian’s urban prefect. Little is known about Pegasus, but he is perhaps
the brother of a considerably more important jurist, Plautius, who may
conceivably be D. Plotius Grypus (cos. ord. 88); Plautius’ writings, also
in the Proculian tradition, were frequently annotated and excerpted by
later jurists.°° By contrast, the elder Juventius Celsus, who succeeded
Pegasus in the Proculian school, is an exceedingly dim figure.®”’ The
Flavian jurists in general maintained the standard school distinctions,
with little major innovation in substance or method.

The Flavian period was thus a disappointing one from the jurists’
standpoint; talent was lacking, or the times were not right. However, by
the end of Domitian’s reign jurisprudence attracted several new
personalities of major importance: Javolenus Priscus (cos. suff. 87), the
successor of Caelius Sabinus among the Sabinians; Titius Aristo, who
probably remained outside the Senate; and Neratius Priscus (cos. suff.
97) and the younger Celsus (pr. 106/107, cos. II 129), who jointly headed
the Proculians after the death of the latter’s father. The advent of these
brilliant jurists marks the beginning of Roman private law’s ‘high
classical’ period, the apex of the juristic movement at Rome.”

% Fragments: Lenel, 1889 (B 109) 1 77-82 (twelve citations, mostly from his commentary on the
curule aediles’ Edict). Pomponius, D 1.2.2.53, says he was influential with Vespasian; details are
lacking.

95 Juv. 1v.75~81; cf. Pomponius, D 1.2.2.53, who says he held the post already under Vespasian.
See also the gossipy scholion on Juv. 1v.77. An inscription names him (Plo)tius Pegasus; cf.
Champlin 1978 (F 648). See also Sturm 1981 (F 696). Fragments: Lenel 1889 (B 109) 11 9-12 (twenty-
eight citations, usually concurring with Proculus or Nerva filius). He presumably moved the two
senatusconsulta bearing his name (Gai. Inst, 1.31, 11.254); both concern private law.

% Fragments: Lenel 1889 (B 109) 11 13-14 (two citations, seven fragments). His work was
annotated by Javolenus and Neratius, and edited by Pomponius (sbid. 11 79-85; forty-six fragments)
and Paul (sbid. 1 1147-78; 174 fragments). On Plautius, see Siber 1951 (F 693); Champlin 1978 (F 648)
271-2.

7 Fragments: Lenel 1889 (B 109) 1 127-8 (four citations, through his son or Neratius). He
survived to at least A.D. 95: Celsus filixs, D 31.29 pr.

% The other known Flavian jurists (Aufidius Chius, Fufidius, Fulcinius Priscus, Varius Lucullus)
are little but names.

% This account of classical private law will continue in C_AH x12.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

APPENDICES

I. CONSULAR DATING FORMULAE
IN REPUBLICAN ITALY

Consular dating formulae én series are of extreme rarity in republican Italy; they
occur on wine amphorae, roof-tiles, the so-called sesserae nummulariae, and also
on the inscriptions of the Capuan magistri.

Dates on wine amphorae are readily intelligible:

CIL 2 2929, Falernian, 160 8.c. (A. Tchernia, Le vin de [’ Italie romaine, Rome,
1986, G6o-3, should not have rejected the testimony of Cic. Brut. 287; the
absence of the term Falernian from the fragment Polyb. xxxiv.11.1 is
manifestly without significance if one reads it in its context in Athenaeus)
ILLRP 1178, 121 B.c.

ILLRP 1180a, 107 B.c.

ILLRP 1181, Massican Falernian, 102 B.C.

ILLRP 1182, Falernian, 102 B.c.

ITLRP 1179, ‘O(pimian?)’ Falernian, 101 B.c. (compare 1180, ‘O(pimian?)’
Falernian)

Hispania Epigraphica 2, 1990, no. 75, Dressel 1 amphora, go B.c.

E. Bucchi, in I/ Veneto nell’eta romana 1, Verona, 1987, 157, Lamboglia 2
amphora, 46 B.c.

ILLRP 1185, Lucretian Falernian, 35 B.c.

Dates on roof-tiles, as on ILLRP 115 1~70, 76-36 B.c., are to be explained by
the fact that they were more valuable if weathered, see Roman Statutes 1995 (F
684) no. 15, Col. I, lines 32-8, with commentary.

The so-called tesserae nummulariae are discussed by J. Andreau, La vie financiére
dans le monde romain, Rome, 1987, 485-506, adopting the generally accepted
view, which was originally propounded by R. Herzog, that they were labels
attached to sacks of coin which had been checked and sealed. It remains
completely unclear why it should be necessary to record not only the year, but
also the month and the day, when coin had been inspected. A single example of
course reads (ILLRP 1023, not accurate):

Anchial(us) Str<a>ti L. s.
specta <ui>t num( )

979

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

980 APPENDIX I

mense Febr(uario)
M. Tul(lio) C. Ant(onio) co(n)s(ulibus)

But one may suspect that the labels were in general for perishables such as corn.

The inscriptions of the Capuan magistri are manifestly the result of the
concession of some form of local administration to Capua in the late second
century B.c.; they run from 112 or 111 B.C. to 71 B.C., with two gaps of ten years
each, which allow us to regard the series as covering the period down to the
Caesarian colony of 59 B.c. (see Frederiksen 1959 (E 41); the attempt of H. Solin,
in id. and M. Kajava (eds.), Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies, Helsinki, 1990,
151-62, ‘Republican Capua’, to minimize the role of the magistri, is unconvinc-
ing: the inscriptions of the Minturnensian magistri are quite unlike those of the
Capuan.

The remaining relevant inscriptions are:

M. Cristofani, in Archeologia nella Tuscia 11, Rome, 1986, 24-6, ‘C. Genucius
Cleusina pretore a Caere’; Epigraphica 48 (1986) 191; Prospettiva 49 (April
1987) 2-14, Caere, engraved in the wet plaster of a tomb chamber:

)

It is unclear whether the text is to be regarded as in the nominative or in the
ablative; whether the last word is to be restored as ‘prai(fectus)/prai(fecto)’ or
‘prai(tor)/prai(tore)’; and whether in the latter case we have a praetor or the
archaic term fora consul. But it is clear that the person is the consul of 276 and
270 B.C.; that his presence as authority or eponym is to be related to the status
of Caere as a community with civitas sine suffragio; and that our text, although
not certainly a consular dating formula, is to be related to those which follow.
ILLRP 1068; R. Frei-Stolba, Jahresbericht 1983 des Ratischen Museums Chur,
197-220; Jahresbericht 1984, 213—40, ‘Die Erkennungsmarke (tessera hospita-
lis) aus Fundi im Ratischen Museum Chur’; ead., ZPE 63 (1986) 193-6, ‘Zur
“tessera hospitalis” aus Fundi’, Fundi, 196, 183, 166, 155 Or 152 B.C.
ILLRP 6935, of uncertain origin, 171 B.C.

Supplementa Italica1, Rome, 1981, 156, no. 40 = AE 1982, 286, Falerii Novi,
tombstone ‘a.d. X K. Dec. C. Atilio Q. Seru < il > io co(n)s(ulibus)’, 106 B.c.
ILLRP 518, Puteoli, 105 B.c.

A. Morandi, ArchClass. 36 (1984) 312-13 (inaccurate), Collemaggiore in
territory of Cliternia of Aequi, building ‘[ C.] Claudio M. Perp[erna
co(n)s(ulibus) ], 92 B.C.

The Fasti Antiates may have begun to be inscribed before the Social War; if

this is so, we have a phenomenon similar to the diffusion of consular dating
formulae.

C. Cenucio Clousino prai(

Where status is secure, it isalways that ofa community with citizenship, without
or with the vote; this suggests that Falerii Novi possessed citizenship, not the
Latin right, contra, I. di Stefano Manzella, |.c., pp. 105—6; for Falerii Novi note
also A. Andrén, SE 48 (1980) 93-9, for a group of third- to second-century B.C.
architectural terracottas from Falerii Novi, Caere, Lanuvium and Ostia, the

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GREEK LANGUAGE 981

others all being by this date communities with citizenship, with or without the
vote. The combination of the likely status and anthroponymy should make it
possible to locate ILLRP 695.

Cases after the Social War are:

ILLRP 1267, Cales, 86 B.c.

ILLRP 1123, Pompeii, 78 B.c.

ILLRP 911, Canusium, 67 B.c.

ILLRP 589, Ferentis, 67 B.c.

ILLRP 735, Minturnae, 65 B.c.

ILLRP 200, perhaps Cremona rather than Mantua, 59 B.c.
ILLRP 508, Furfo, 58 B.c.

ILLRP 608, Grumentum, 57 B.c.

ILLRP 1352, Interamna Praetuttiorum, 55 B.C.

Forma Italiae 1, 10 (1974), no. 382, Collatia, reservoir for oil, 55 B.c.
ILLRP 607, Grumentum, 51 B.C.

ILLRP 763, Pompeii, 47 B.c.

ILLRP 562a, Casinum, 40 B.c.

ILLRP 203, Verona, 38 B.C.

II. SURVIVAL OF GREEK LANGUAGE
AND INSTITUTIONS

Funerary inscriptions, which may be of persons, often slaves or freedmen, of
extraneous origin, are mostly excluded.

See in general F. Ghinatti, Critica Storica 11 (1974) 533-76, ‘Riti e feste della
Magna Grecia’; notI. R. Arnold, AJA 64 (1960) 245-51, ‘Agonistic festivals in
Italy and Sicily’.

Neapolis:

Varro, Ling. v.85; v1.15; Cic. Balb. 55; Rab. Post. 26-7; Tuse. 1.86; Dio Lv. 10. 9;
Strab. v.4.7 (246C), vi.1.2 (253); Vell. Pat. 1.4.2; Suet. Claud. 11; Ner. 20 and 25;
Tac. Ann. xv.33; Dio Lx.6.1-2; HA, Hadr. 19.1.

F. de Martino, PP 7 (1952) 333-43, ‘Le istituzioni di Napoli greco-romana’;
F. Sartori, Problemi di storia costituzionale italiota, Rome, 1953, 46—5 5; F. Ghinatti,
Alene e Roma n.s. 12 (1967) 97-109, “Ricerche sui culti greci di Napoli in eta
romana imperiale’; J. Pinsent, PP 24 (1969) 368-72, ‘The magistracy at Naples’;
R. Merkelbach, ZPE 15 (1974) 192-3, ‘Zu der Festordning fiir die Sebasta in
Neapel’; E. Miranda, Rend. Ace. Arch. Napoli 57 (1982) 165-81, ‘I cataloghi dei
Sebasta di Napoli’; F. Costabile, Istituzioni e forme costituzionali nelle citta del Bruzio
in eta romana, Naples, 1984, 126-8; E. Miranda, in Napoli antica, Naples, 1985,
386-97, ‘Istituzioni, agoni e culti’.

Further inscriptions:

E. Miranda, in Napoli antica, Naples. 1985, 394, no. 117.1, a priestess of

Athena Sicula

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

982 APPENDIX II

M. J. Osborne, AncSo¢ 19 (1988) 5-60, ‘Attic epitaphs’, at 27, no. 159, AaeAta
‘Pwpaia yuvy [ippov NearoXizov (Roman period)
F. Miranda, Epigr. 50 (1988) 222-6, ‘Tito a Napoli’ (dedication to Titus)
C. Ferone, Miscellanea Greca e Romana xut, Rome, 1988, 167-80, ‘Sulliscri-
zione napoletana della fratria degli Artemisi’ (AE 1913, 134)
F. Miranda, Miscellanea Greca e Romana x11, Rome 1988, ‘Due nuove fratrie
napoletane’ (IG xiv, 730; IGRR t 436)
FE. Miranda, Pwteoli 12-13 (1988-9) 95-102, ‘Un decreto consolatorio da
Neapolis’ (Augustan).
EF. Miranda, Iscrizioni greche d'Italia. Napoli 1, Rome, 1990, nos. 7, 17, 22, 26,
27

Dicaearchia (Puteoli):
Cic. Tusc. 1.86.

Velia:

Cic. Balb. 55.

Sartori, Problemi, 106-7 (unaware of the first inscription cited below); id.,
1976 (E 118) 113 NN. 119-20.

Further inscriptions:

ILS 6461, gymnasiarch

E. Miranda, MEFRA 94 (1982) 163-74, ‘Nuove iscrizioni sacre di Velia’, at
163-5, first-century B.C. to first-century a.D. dedication to Athena (Polias?)

J.-P. Morel, in £ 77, 21-39, at 23 n. 14, [TdmAtos émdyoe.
SEG xxxviit 1020; XXxIx 1078

Rhegium:

Strab. vi.1.2 (253C).
Sartori, Problemi, 136-42; F. Costabile, in Sartori 1976 (E 118) 466-7; F.
Costabile, Istituzioni e forme costituzionali nelle citta del Bruzio in eta romana, Naples,
1984, 128-40; SEG Xu 854-5, 858

Rediscovered inscription:

IG xtv 617 = B. F. Cook, Antiquaries Journal 51 (1971) 260-6, at 260-3.

Note that Rhegium had always gravitated more to Sicily than to Italy and that
Sicily long remained an area of largely Greek culture under the Empire.

Locri:
F. Costabile, Municipium Locrensium, Naples, 1976, 73-5, with SEG xu 837.

Tarentum:

Cicero, 11 Verr. 4.135; Arch. 5; Fin. 1.7; Strab. vt.1.2 (253C).

Sartori, Problemi 89-90; L. Gasperini, in Terza Miscellanea Greca e Romana,
Rome, 1971, 143-209, ‘Il municipio tarentino’ (note especially prohedria in first
century A.D.); L. Gasperini, in Se¢tima Miscellanea Greca e Romana, Rome, 1980,
365-84, ‘Tarentina epigraphica’.

Further inscriptions:

M. Calvet, P. Roesch, R-A (1966) 297-332 (Philon son of Philon of Taras at
games in Tanagra between 90 and 80 B.c.)

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

INSCRIPTIONS 983

L. Gasperini, Ricerche ¢ studi 12 (1979) 141-51, ‘Epitafio mistilingue di eta
imperiale a Taranto’.

E. Lippolis, Taras 4 (1984) 141-2 = SEG xxxiv 1020-1 = L. Gasperini,
Taras 5 (1985) 311-14 = SEG xxxvi 943 (two second-century A.D. dedications)

L. Gasperini, Studi A. Adriani 11 Rome, 1984, 476-9, ‘Un buleuta alessan-
drino a Taranto’ (third century A.D.).

Canusium:

Hor. Sa#. 1.10.30, with Scholia.

Note also:

L. Moretti, RFIC 100 (1972) 180-2 = R. Gaeta et al., Le epigrafi romane di
Canosa 1, Bari, 1985, no. 282 (visitor from Lycia). (The text of no. 193 is too
uncertainly transmitted to form the basis of serious argument.)

III. INSCRIPTIONS IN LANGUAGES OTHER
THAN LATIN AFTER THE SOCIAL WAR

ETRUSCAN

An oracle allegedly given to Romulus, reported by C. Fonteius Capito, claimed
that Tyche would desert Rome when she had forgotten her mdtpios dwvy (John
the Lydian, De Mag. II, 12 = III, 42 = De Mens. fr. 7, p. 180w); John certainly
thought that this was Latin and it is very hazardous to argue that Etruscan was
originally intended, as E. Gabba, in Les origines de la république romaine, Fondation
Hardt, Entretiens 13, Geneva, 1967, 133-69, ‘Considerazioni sulla tradizione
letteraria sulle origini della Repubblica’, at 148-9.

J. R. Wood, MPAL 5 (1981) 94-125, ‘The Etrusco-Latin /iber Tageticus in
Lydus’ de ostentis’, may well be right to argue that John had got wind of a
bilingual exposition of Etruscan lore; and his supplements for the gaps in the
text are plausible. But John also claims that the Etruscan text had never been fully
intelligible to foreigners; and there is no reason to swallow ¢hat claim.

W. V. Harris, Rome in Etruria and Umbria, Oxford, 1971, 172-5, discusses the
limited evidence for Latin inscriptions in Etruria in Etruscan, as opposed to
Roman or Latin, territory. In my view, the inscription from San Giuliano (173
n. 1) should be taken as evidence that the site formed part of the territory of
Sutrium; and there is no certainty that the inscription on the statuette from
Volsinii = Orvieto (175 n. 1) was engraved there. The tufa block from near
Volsinii = Orvieto (175 n. 2, NSe (1932) 482-3), reading MAMIA, is
mysterious. Note now the single Latin grafhto ADON on an Arretine coppetta,
second half of first century B.c., from the Etruscan and Greek sanctuary of
Graviscae, M. Torelli, Scavi e ricerche archeologiche 1976-9 1, Quademni di ‘La
Ricerca Scientifica’, Rome: CNR, 1985, 355.

Bilinguals are discussed at Harris, Rome in Etruria and Umbria 175-7; note H.
Rix, Bettrage zur Namenforschung 7 (1956) 147-72, ‘Die Personnamen auf den
etruskischen Bilinguen’, for the striking case of Iuuentius constructed (mistak-
enly) from Iuppiter in replacement of sins related to Tinia. There is a curious
Etruscan inscription, engraved on a coarse-ware pot, before firing, in the Latin

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

984 APPENDIX III

alphabet, from Limentra near Porretta on the way to the pass from the Po valley
to Pistoia, G. Susini, CR.AI 1965, 155 n. 1, citing Festus 17 L:
{——]AGI{—_]

{——TIN] AFFNIN ARSE V[ERSE——]

I do not know what to make of a fragmentary and unintelligible inscription,
partly in Etruscan, partly in Latin, engraved on a brick before firing, from a
first- to second-century a.p. dump in Pisa, M. Cristofani, SE 38 (1970) 288.

Harris, Rome in Etruria and Umbria, 180-2, discusses the Latin inscriptions
from after the Social War, 177-80, the last Etruscan inscriptions; note also:
Arretium:

G. Maetzke, SE 23 (1954) 353-6, “Tomba con urnetta iscritta trovata in
Arezzo’: grave with Arretine ware and bilingual inscription; A. Cherici, SE 55
(1987-8) 331-2, no. 104, urn with second- to first-century B.C. inscription;

Caere:

M. Martelli, SE 55 (1987-8) 340-1, no. 118: Etruscan name in Latin script,
second to first century B.c.; M. Cristofani, ibid., 324-5, no. 95, Latin funerary
inscription;

Clusium:

CIL x1 2146-57, 2185-9, 2190-5, 2196-2200, 2201~—10, 2217-19, 2250-2;
groups of funerary inscriptions which move from Etruscan to Latin, usually via
Etrusco-Latin, between the second and first centuries B.c.

Perusia:

T. Rasmussen, ArchRep 1985-6, 113-14; tomb of efx family, in use from the
third to the first centuries B.c., one sarcophagus and fifty urns, Etruscan and
then Latin inscriptions; add L. Cenciaioli, SE 55 (1987-8) 3 11-14; group of four
urns, second to first century B.c. Etruscan and then Latin inscriptions.

Saena:

E. Mangani, SE 50 (1982) 103—46,‘Il tumulo dei marcni ad Asciano’: two
chambers, in use from the third century B.c. to Augustus; seventy-eight
Etruscan inscriptions, one Latin (whence E. Mangani, SE 51 (1983) 425-6).

Volaterrae:

There is an enormous bibliography on the urns of Volaterrae, which may be
pursued through A. Maggiani, SE 51 (1983) 247-8, no. 55 (urn of 100-50 B.C.);
M. Pandolfini, SE 52 (1984) 310-11, no. 66 (urn of 100-50 B.c.); M. Nielsen, J.
Paul Getty Museum Journal 1986, 43-58, ‘Late Etruscan cinerary urns from
Volterra at the J. Paul Getty Museum’; the consensus seems to be that they last
for a generation or so after the Social War.

OSCAN

It is more than doubtful whether the plays and mimes of Strab. v. 3. 6 (233C); or
the Osei /udi of Cic. Fam. vut.1.3 (= SB 24) are pieces in Oscan, rather than
‘Atellan’ farces, despite E. D. Rawson, Intellectual Life in the Late Roman
Republic, London, 1985, 22 n. 12.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ITALIAN CALENDARS 985

P. Poccetti, Studi e Saggi Linguistici 22 (1982) 183-7, ‘Minima Paeligna’
(Vetter, 217a-b), rejects the notion of an Italic ‘revival’; his arguments are weak;
but even if they are wrong, the texts which might document such a ‘revival’
cannot be closely dated. For Vetter 213 (Corfinium) as an example of such a
‘revival’, see A. L. Prosdocimi, in Le iscrizioni pre-latine in Italia, Atti dei
Convegni Lincei 39, Rome, 1979, 119-214, ‘Le iscrizioni italiche. Acquisizioni
temi problemi’, at 176-8.

A belief in the use of Oscan after the Social War has usually been supported by
the painted inscriptions from Pompeii (Vetter, nos. 23-35; for a proper
archaeological account it is necessary to go back to Conway), on the grounds
that one should not posit too long an interval before A.D. 79; but the so-called
eituns inscriptions, which are painted, are certainly no later than the Social War,
A. L. Prosdocimi, in Popoli e civilta del? Italia antica v1, Rome, 1978, 825-912, ah
874-8, ‘Le “‘eituns”’; and in Montefusco near Benevento, a few years ago, a
painted slogan ‘Viva Badoglio’ was perfectly legible nearly half a century on.
None of the painted inscriptions from Pompeii need be even as late as Augustus.

For a group of Oscan graffiti on pottery from Pompeii, second to middle of
the first centuries B.c., see C. Reusser, SE 50 (1982) 360-3.

M. L. Porzio Gernia, MAL 1973-4, 111-337, ‘Contributi metodologici allo
studio del latino arcaico. La sorte di M e D finali’, at 15 1-2, shows that almost
alone of Oscan cities, Pompeii sometimes abandons final M, under Latin
influence, at the time of the Social War; a process of assimilation is evidently
already taking place.

Capua:

The curse tablet, Vetter, no. 6, may belong after the Social War, it abandons
final M on three out of twenty-six occasions, M. L. Porzio Gernia, MAL
1973-4.

Cumae:

The curse tablet, Vetter, no. 7, is conventionally placed between Sulla and
Caesar; it is a strange mixture of Oscan and Latin.

MESSAPIC

C. de Simone, in H. Krahe, Die Sprache der Illyrier 11, Wiesbaden, 1964, 36-7,
discusses the possibility that Messapic survived for a time after the Social War.

IV. ITALIAN CALENDARS
Ov. Fast. 111.87-98 (compare v1.59—63):

quod si forte vacas, peregrinos inspice fastos:
mensis in his etiam nomine Martis erit.

tertius Albanis, quintus fuit ille Faliscis,

sextus apud populos, Hernica terra, tuos.

inter Aricinos Albanaque tempora constat
factaque Telegoni moenia celsa manu.

quintum Laurentes, bis quintum Aequiculus acer,

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

986 APPENDIX IV

a tribus hunc primum turba Curensis habet;
et tibi cum proavis, miles Paeligne, Sabinis
convenit: huic genti quartus utrique deus.

So if you happen to have time, look at foreign calendars: in these too there will be a
month with the name of Mars; it was the third month for the people of Alba, the fifth for
the Falisci, the sixth for the Hernici; the people of Aricia and Alba have a calendar in
common, just as they have high walls built by the hand of Telegonus; the Laurentes have
Mars fifth, the fierce Aequi tenth, the people of Cures fourth; and the warriors of the
Paeligni are in agreement with their Sabine ancestors, for Mars comes fourth in both
cases.

Censorinus, D.N. 22.6:

apud Albanos Martius est sex et triginta, Maius viginti et duum, Sextilis duodeviginti,
September sedecim; Tusculanorum Quintilis dies habet XX X VI, October XXXII, idem
October apud Aricinos XX XVIIII.

March has thirty-six days among the people of Alba, May twenty-two, Sextilis eighteen,
September sixteen, Quintilis of the people of Tusculum has thirty-six days, October
thirty-two, yet October among the people of Aricia has thirty-nine.

Macrob. Saf. 1.15.18:

ut autem omnes Idus Iovi, ita omnes Kalendas Iunoni tributas et Varronis et pontificalis
ad firmat auctoritas. quod etiam Laurentes patriis religionibus servant, qui et cognomen
deae ex caerimoniis addiderunt, Kalendarem Iunonem vocantes. ..

The authority both of Varro and of the pontifices confirms that just as all the Ides are
dedicated to Jupiter, so all the Kalends are dedicated to Juno. The Laurentes even
preserve this fact in their ancestral cults, since they have actually adopted the name of the
goddess from their liturgies, calling the day of the Kalends Juno...

(Censorinus and Macrobius are clearly in error in supposing that the customs
in question survived to their own day.)
Varro, Ling. v1.14:

Quinquatrus... ut ab Tusculanis post diem sextum Idus similiter vocatur Sexatrus et
post diem septimum Septimatrus, sic hic quod erat post diem quintum Idus
Quinquatrus.

Quinquatrus. .. Just as the sixth day after the Ides is called Sexatrus by the Tusculani on

the same principle and the seventh day Septimatrus, so here Quinquatrus (was used)
because it was the fifth day after the Ides.

Festus 304-6 L:

Quinquatrus... forma autem vocabuli eius exemplo multorum populorum Italicorum
enuntiata est, quod post diem quintum Iduum est is dies festus, ut apud Tusculanos
Triatrus et Sexatrus et Septematrus et Faliscos Decimatrus.

Quinquatrus... But the form of that word is adopted on the model of many Italic
peoples, because it is a feast day the fifth day after the Ides, just as Triatrus and Sexatrus
and Septematrus exist among the people of Tusculum and Decimatrus among the Falisci.

See in particular C. Ampolo, CR 38 (1988) 117-20, reviewing M. Torelli,
Lavinio e Roma, Rome, 1984.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

FUNERARY PRACTICES 987-

V. VOTIVE DEPOSITS

There is a general overall account by M. Fenelli, ArchClass 27 (1975) 206-52,
‘Contributo per lo studio del votivo anatomico: i votivi anatomici di Lavinio’:
‘la diffusione di questa consuetudine si é avuta sopratutto dal IV al sec a.C.’

See AJA 1974, 25 = Forma Italiae 111, 2, no. 19 for:

Volceii (San Mauro) — 200 down to 75—50B.c. (there is no reason to blame the
revolt of Spartacus; the site was converted to secular purposes in the first
century A.D.).

See M. Torelli, £ 130, 105 n. 49 for:

Veii (Porta Caere) — down to 50-40 B.c.

Gabii — down to 50-40 B.c. (see now M. A. Aubet, Cuadernos 14 (1980) 75—
122, ‘Catalogo preliminar de las terracottas de Gabii’).

See A. La Regina, in P. Zanker (ed.) (E 141), 219-54, ‘Il Sannio’, at 237, for:

Schiavi d’ Abruzzo — third century B.c. down to a miserable end some time
after the Social War.

See Sannio, Rome, 1980, 249-50 for:

Capracotta — down to the middle of the first century A.D.

See tbid., 269-81 for a site that almost dies at the end of the first century B.c.
and then revives:

San Giovanni in Galdo.

The sanctuary of Mefitis in the Valle d’Ansanto is very imperfectly known;
part of the votive deposit was discovered in circumstances which are for all
practical purposes undocumented and was meticulously published by A. Bottini
et al., NSc 1976, 359-524, ‘Valle d’Ansanto. I] deposito votivo del santuario de
Mefite’; and part of the sanctuary was well excavated and published by I.
Rainini, I/ santuario di Mefite in Valle d’ Ansanto, Rome, 1985. No more than a
generic relationship can be established between the two sets of finds. That part
of the votive deposit which is known just struggles down to the end of the
Republic; and there was some building in the first half of the second century A.D.
in the area of the sanctuary, which was thereafter abandoned until used for other
purposes in the fourth century a.p.

VI. EPICHORIC FUNERARY PRACTICES

M. W. Frederiksen (n. 63), identified a group of Campanian funerary stelae with
one or more full-length figures in an aedicula and dated it to the late Republic, say
Ty0-50 B.C.; the stelae were replaced by cippi or mausolea. Apart from Capua,
the stelae come from her dependency Atella (CIL x 3744, 3752); Caiatia (CIL x
4605); Sinuessa (EE vit 563); Cales (Frederiksen, 103 n. 100: Vetter, no. 73, two
Oscan stelae; Frederiksen, 100: CIL x 4696; EE vitt 5 40, $43, 551, 55355555573
CIL x 4680, is uncertain), Teanum (Frederiksen, 102 n. 97: Vetter, nos. 1234,
123b+d (R. Antonini, in Popol: e civilta delf Italia antica v1, Rome, 1978, 825-
giz, ‘L’Osco’, at 874, ‘Teano’), 123c, three Oscan stelae; Vetter, no. 123¢ =
NS¢ 1913, 408, an Oscan stela; Frederiksen, 100, seven Latin stelae; A. Maiuri,
Passeggiate campane>, Florence, 1957, 182-4, a stela of a single woman brought
from Teano to Casale di Carinola and intended for the Museo Provinciale

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

988 APPENDIX VI

Campano); an example from Isola di Sora (EE vitt 609) has probably been
transported there in modern times.

M. Eckert, Capuanische Grabsteine (Oxford: BAR, 1988), dates the stelae
between 100 B.C. and A.D. 25; but his work is for all practical purposes unusable,
since he is unaware that Atella is inseparable from Capua and he makes no
attempt to relate his more limited corpus to that of Frederiksen; at no. 84, he
randomly includes an Oscan stela from Teanum, which is a mis-read version of
Poccetti, no. 137. Poccetti, nos. 137-8, are in fact two further examples of stelae
in Oscan from Teanum.

H. Solin, in id. and M Kajava (eds.), Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies,
Helsinki, 1990, 15 1-62, ‘Republican Capua’, at 160-1, dates the stelae between
50 B.c. and A.D. 50, claiming that the letter forms, onomastic formulae and
literary style are imperial; no support whatever is offered for these assertions,
which ignore the much wider range of arguments adduced by Frederiksen; and
note that Solin’s assignation to the Empire of a substantial body of inscriptions
of freedmen without cognomina has been disproved by M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni,
Annales Latini Montium Arvernorum 16 (1989) 89-193 ‘Le cognomen des
affranchis’.

P. Pensabene, MDAI(R) 82 (1975) 263-97 ‘Cippi funerari di Taranto’, shows
that at Tarentum traditional chamber and trench tombs virtually die out over
the second and first centuries B.c.

id., ibid., 285—6, nn. 110-18; M. W. Frederiksen, Joc. cit.:

square herms of local stone, first aniconic, then iconic, at Pompeii, Stabiae,
Surrentum, Nuceria Alfaterna, replaced by marble cippi; the change seems, with
Frederiksen, against Pensabene, significant. (The herms are illustrated in Un
impegno per Pompei. Fotopiano e documentazione della necropoli di Porta Nocera,
Touring Club Italiano, 1983; V. Kockel, Die Grabbauten vor dem Herkulaner Tor in
Pompeji, Mainz, 1983: the type appears in the second century B.c. and some
examples may be as late as the last years of the town, 17-18.)

S. Diebner, DArch Terza serie, 1 (1983) 1, 63-78, ‘Un gruppo di cinerari
romani del Lazio meridionale’:

square inscribed blocks with hole for ashes, covered with egg-shaped lids
inscribed OSSA, from former Volscian territory, late Republic to early Empire.

G. D’Henry, in Samnium, Rome, 1991, 229-31, with earlier bibliography,
eliminating Aesernia, where the lids are quite different and come in addition
from a single tomb:

lids in the shape of money chests from Corfinium on the one hand and
Amiternum and Foruli on the other hand.

For Etruria in general, see W. V. Harris, 177-80; G. Maetzke; T. Rasmussen,
L. Cenciaioli; E. Mangani; A. Maggiani; M. Pandolfini; M. Nielsen, all cited in
Appendix III; for Volsinii = Orvieto, see A. Andrén, I/ santuario della necropoli di
Cannicella ad Orvieto, Orvieto, 1968 3, nn. 4-5; Mostra degli scavi archeologici alla
Cannicella di Orvieto. Campagna 1977, Orvieto, 1978, 103, for a cemetery that lasts
just long enough to achieve a minimal presence of Arretine ware; for South
Etruria, see E. di Paolo Colonna, in Studi G. Maetzke 111, Rome, 1984, 513-26,
‘Su una classe di monumenti funerari romani dell’meridionale’; F. Prayon, in
Ati Sec.Cong.Int.Etr. 1, Florence, 1989, 441-9 ‘L’architettura funeraria etrusca.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GRAVE STELAE 989

La situazione attuale delle ricerche e problemi aperti’, at 448-9, for stepped
tombs drawing on earlier models and falling between the second century B.c.
and Augustus.

VII. DIFFUSION OF ALIEN GRAVE STELAE
G. Ciampoltrini, Prospettiva 30 (1982) 2-12 ‘Le stele funerarie d’eta imperiale
dell’Etruria settentrionale’: ‘stele architettoniche’, occurring largely between
Luni and Florence, diffused under Augustus partly by veterans and partly by
adoption of urban freedman ideology.

S. Diebner, DArch Terza serie, 5 (1987) 1, 29-42 ‘Aspetti della scultura
funeraria tra tarda repubblica ed impero’:

intrusion of urban decorative motifs in Umbria and Sabina under Augustus
and Julio-Claudians.

I. Valdiserri Paoletti, RAL 1980, 193-216 ‘Cippi funerari cilindrici dal
territorio di Marruvium’:

monuments mostly of freedmen diffused from centre from late Republic to
Augustus.

F. van Wonterghem, Forma Italiae tv, 1, Florence, 1984, 102-3:

a portrait stela of two freedmen from Superaequum modelled on those of
Rome.

L. Todisco, RAL, serie ottava, 42 (1987) 145-55, ‘Leoni funerari di Luceria’,
with earlier bibliography at 149 n. 12:

‘sculture del genere ebbero ampia diffusione nell’architettura dell’ Italia
romanizzata, con cronologia che s fa oscillare tra perlomeno la meta del I secolo
a.C. ed il II d.C.’

F. van Wonterghem, ActaArchLov 21 (1982) 99-125 ‘Monumento funerario
di un tribunus militum a Corfinio’:

distribution map of round mausolea modelled on those of Rome (including
that of C. Utianius Cf. at Polla, [ta/ 111 1. 113, also discussed by F. Coarelli (n.
79).

P. Pensabene, MDAI(R) 82 (1975) 263-97 ‘Cippi funerari di Taranto’:

appearance of portrait cippi 25 B.C. to A.D. so in a Roman cemetery
superimposed on the Greek one.

G. Chiesa, in Studi... A. Calderini... E. Paribeni 111, Milan, 1936, 385-411
‘Una classe di rilievi funerari romani a ritratti dell’Italia settentrionale:

a phenomenon surely to be explained in terms of diffusion from Rome to the
Po valley rather than joint derivation from a ‘tradizione italica’; see in general
G. A. Mansuelli, ibid., 365-84 ‘Genesi e caratteri della stele funeraria padana’;
Dr Maurizio Harari draws my attention to funerary beds of central Italian type
in early imperial graves in the Lomellina.

(I find it extraordinarily hard to accept the view of V. Kockel, cited in
Appendix VI, that the late first-century B.c. herms from Adria, illustrated in G.
Fogolari and B. M. Scarfi, Adria antica, Venice, 1970, pl. $4, 1-2, are not the
result of diffusion via migrants from the region of Pompeii; the herms from
Petelia, published by A. Capano, Ké/earchos 22 (1980) 15-69, “Tombe romane da
Strongoli’, are admitted as a case of diffusion by Kockel, but are all of the very
end of the first century and the second century A.D.)

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUQ aSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

(29°p)
snyneig snyjoqny
0} payeyeu Aqueysp = -----
(se'?) (81500) vr, Aen
snijewen snyeq «© snpUBIg sMfeqny = enM

Vato snjadINS ue
’
{

BUA =«SMIONYIO snojuBUwer \

BAN = snstug (dope)
t
1
I
(28 6 ‘s09) {
BuiIGO BAT
t

Bvoyuy JeBuno, = snsrug snipnetD cueN —etiny (2) = BURSA (1) = SNIUTEIL

BAN (2) =
OusN
(typ) snpydey snijwey “Wy (2) = (ze soo) winonvo (ce 'P) (sep)
{9p 'P) SRRIUA “= BIKA BM = (OF “s00) snuyBuo] snissed “> (1) = BIISTUG SnqieqoueUy snpWog “UD = BurdduBy seBunoy snap aBseeD sNsTug —-1BS9BD) AION

(gy ‘609) (¢ ‘809) (ey ‘p) (v9"P) (8b ‘s00)
SNYIOUA "1 © BUD BIUNY STUBARS SNISsBD ‘D = Bpde7 BUN] = SNUBS] SNUEIG'Q = SNULTIS '‘W

{61 *609}

SNUBTS SN}UN| “W = ep{de7 eyRUEY
(1 Ov ‘s09) | (pL OVP) (Z av'p) (y OV'p)
enguBWweED = BuidduBy 26p|3 SNyneg SNyWwey 7 = BN] Snunjsoy eddufy s8s988D snion7 sBS0BD ENIBD
wddyBy (1) = en}
BUOQUIS (+) = (SALSNONY) uEBEDO

VIAIT ANV SOLSNSNV JO SINVAONADOSHC ‘I

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUQ aSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

01 peyroneg = ,

{z9'P)
snineig snyjjoqny
(ce‘P) X1/84 BING ENISNEY (Z) =
snpusig eniyjoqny = ay)N] snyousg sAUegy, snuBe; snradwog ‘uy (4) = e1uoWy

OW3N (2) =
{8p 'p} Snug 7 (1) = e1A21G

IWAN et] osu eU;dduBy seBunc, YINOMVD sng auEN
{uespjiy> omy) |
E euljjessany (¢) =
@

unaty o1Sy (2) = |

eyURINBI (1) = OsBN SNIONVIO snVEqu euidduby sepia = snojuguueS

SnsTUQ © GIANT

(25 ‘s09)
SNIGNW1D = eulljessoy xyay BINS sMisney OuaN
(gz “803) | (vp 2 "609)
snugyg sniun] sniddy °9 (6) = sndsy9
{LE "S09) Bling smsney (2) = (Z€ "s09) snugisseg

sruequeg eessayy Snuo[e, "Wy (t) = epIde]eWog —euIdduby seBuno, = snqueqoueyy snwog ‘uD —=snYLENeS = eI]WOG

(38 609) {38 95) (3891 '809) (286f.)
Snsnug snipne|) OON = BIUdWUY seSuNO, Snqueqouayy sniyWog 7 = erudiuy 49p]3

SNIUOUY “WW = BIARDO

ANO.LNV AUVW ANV VIAV.LOO YALSIS SNLSNONV JO SINVONADOSAT II

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUQ aSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

(2p OV x0) SNUBIUOQUIS sNiWe? snAUNITY 7

{£9 GV “x0 0g) snyNy ENIUOqUOS pue snyNIdIg

SNIUOUDE sNDIding ‘y SuOs Sty PUB (oY TV “x) sNiNddLy ENUOGLIS
“@PNppul B]UOGLIS 0} perejou USE @ARY ABW OlyA Ss9419

{oz “xe) UONNDOXO jo Bep = “xo

shueuaed osig sniundje) = (saxyBnep) {eoneyodAY ese sciysuongyes BSBY) JO @UIOS

(eq1e9 Aq paydope) (uaryBnep (Lp x0)

B18 Buy (2) = (s9°x8) (04 x8 “4g "S09) SnugIUoqUoS snueupn 16ruy (£9 "x@ ‘pg 809) SNIpne|)) snubew

BYNSAH GIA] () = OSig STUNDE" —osig sNjWNdje) 7] = eUBeYW eiUII] sNssex sniuIOr] OsigsMmUuNdje) "7 [Buy Snssexy sniUIDT WW eIUOWUY = sniedwiog ‘uD

(91 xe) (91 av"seo) (Lp ‘xe) (Lp x0 ‘zz ‘a'V 809)

STSTUQ Or] SNIUOQUIS "Wy Og!7 SniuoqUDS 7 B1U0QUIG = 1Bruy SnsexD SMIUIONT "YW
| (28 pI "s09)
(16nuy osig @ us0g) Brug snsseu) ‘Ww

(98 1 ‘s09)
Btedwog = 097] sniuoquas 7] |
| ssadope ('9'8 Of '809) snsse1d ‘Wy
sniedwiog Snyxeg = gIUOqUIS |
BOIOYY 8119089 = SNSsEl.
eqn] sp 13 HOLBY 811008) DW
('9'8 2S pus gg ‘Oz ‘s09) (38 pe '609) |{srusnBny) (-78g¢¢ pue Oz S09)
1015 oy) Asdwog OQ! SNIUOQUIS 7] BIUOQUIS (|) = URLABIIO snsseld W
017 SAUOqUIS 7]

IONad SASSVUAD SNINIDIT 'W dO ATINVGA AHL II

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUQ aSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

{601 ‘O'v ‘809) (62 ‘°v “p) 0) peyyoursq = ,
snddedojtyg sniyny edduby
{06 2 'P
82/L7'0'V “) {ebb ‘Ov YyNs ‘609)
tedduby SNueiny] spuexapy SsNyny “WL

(99 “av '9) BioMI9 Jo UOWO|Og (¢)

xy} SNIUOTUY “W (6) = =
= SII]BYD JO POIBH (2) = Jopuaxayy

Bsa] $0 SOzIzy (7) =
(Bury ue191|19) sapuexayy = odero] soueydid3, (t) = elsTug (bp OV 010}0q "p) sopueXary snIiN] SNaueW (1) = BIUaIEg B1/N] SNYN] SNUOgU,
{€2 ‘0'v pasodep) (pp OV- 3801)
aueBewwoy jo A] snyoonuy LedduBy (poseq) SniyN] youegery 94) supuexery
| sopuexory 40 011g
enluaieg [

4v3¥9 3HL GOU3H

SNIGNVTD AGNV VINDITV)D ‘VVINOLNV JO SLNAITD NYALSVA ‘AI

994
V. PRINCIPAL MEMBERS OF THE HERODIAN FAMILY

Antipater (d.436.c}
(Cyprus)

Phasae! HEROD Joseph Pheroras Salome (d. c. AD. 10) = (1) Joseph (d. 35/34 B.c.)

(d.408.c} (d.4ec) (d.38ec} (d.5e.c) = (2} Costobar (d. 26 Bc.)
= (3) Alexas

(Doris) (Mariamme} (Maithace) (Cleopatra)

Antipater Alexander Aristobulus Herod Herod Philip

(d.48.c) (d.78c) {d.7ac) Archelaus Antipas {d. 4.0.34)

= (Berenice)
Herod of Chalcis Agrippal Herodias
(d. ao, 44)

Agrippa II Berenice Drusilla

p
(d. before aD. 93 (or aD. 100)}

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

‘ob yo dsysyns
-UOD $,01]]Og 30} UDINIM AI aMTorr7 ‘13314,

‘uanieg Jo 2]dura3 ay3 yo uoNE0IS ZY

*plAG JO Yasig “0399! Jo Japny
‘(aquiazaq_ ot) mt addyigg ‘(saquiaidag
t) 1 addyigg 8,039) “61YO aq 8.03221)

aunyDaIIYyDIY pue wy ‘on

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUQ aSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

*(JaquIm) suaty
ae B1ARIDO pue Auoy ‘[NeD uF susredwes
eddy3y ‘suemueg oy) sieajop snipnus,

‘Qow

-WINS) [Nes UT SNUZ{E> JO YIWIG “eNE[ED JO
snvi01g Bury jo yiIeeg ‘snusiqey ‘> pue
snzoseq 4q pa] eishs JO uorseaur URE
‘e1IpUeX2]Y 01 sp22302d pus

JUIN UI sn] e eIIedO2]75 syz9W AUOIUY
‘eaepn( yO syoze3323 powrodde jaestyd
JIyIOIq sly pue polay ‘eisy ur hUOWY
“snisse2) pue

sninig jo soproins 4q pamoyjoy ‘(32qQ0129
€z UO Puodas ‘3990199 UI Ajse> AsIY)
iddiryg jo saneg “(Ain 1) snyunea “q
jo yduiniay ueisdqy ssnyny snuaiprayes yim
apeq [eaeN “ApIoIg sjo33UOD snrodutog “x95

[NED UI sng °C jo yIFIG,

6£

SaDUIAOIg FUL,

ATAVL TVOIDOTONOUHD

(uisds) unuastyy Jo 198q

‘(uWnine) vaspn(

jo dU0IY) 3y2 paruBT poss} *(Jaquia:das)
winisipunig jo 198g ‘(JoWIUINS) BIUOGIIIG
saniew uBlA‘i© ‘(Buds A[Je9) sntuoUy
“1 Aq uetarsG9 01 visnJag 30 J>puaIINS

‘IeSIBD SNITN] JO UONBOYIAG

‘(1aquIDAON Lt) 238

-JAUINIZ} By? S2YsTqesse BNI], xT] “(sn3ny
61) [NsUOD saUIOdIq UTIABIDO “esUtY PUT
SNIP] S[NsuOd jo sy sap ‘suLIN YY JO aIVg

“(yore $1) sesaeD snI[N] jo UONsUISsESSY

6£

Ayeyy pus woy

‘ore

winjo,j 24} Ul yasy “(asn3ny gz) 4302914 Jo
seife ay) pue (asn3ny g1) erjny ens ay pue
snyny snag jo aduia3 243 yo voneIpeq

‘sopodq ‘22810} Jo UONEoITQng

‘anway.y s,Aadwog jo uonuoissy
‘90104. SHEN] S2ALAII a]Ipoe se eddu3y

“(eqny enby)
yyy 8 Sppe pus sionponbe sosoisez eddudy

“‘asNTTeS JO IVa

‘eIZay 2yI jo UONINIIsUOIIZY

*(of-LE) saatpog ‘ae
“JOH JO uoIusodwios ‘osysry ay aq ‘ose,

‘sanTop7q ‘WIA Jo voneoyqng

8007 ‘sserg AtssoaTUQ oSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

£¢

££

s€

gf-Lt

ainIdaNYy.Iy pue wy ‘osnIEIIWT]

‘seuseiseg siZ2j9p
Pue sowyy sayied snssez> sniupry "Wl
‘Qsn8ny 01) enedo2[p

JO apring ‘(asn8ny 1) Auowuy jo aprons
pue ueiaeog Aq elspuexety jo aimidep
*(saquiaidag z) wnnoy jo seg

“eIUDWIY Ut SUTeUIdI
Auowuy ‘eruvjesnepy Jo snyo20g Jo WIIG
+ suoneuog, 243 Aq pamoyjoj

‘eyspuexsty ye yduinuy ‘sopsearuy jo
asnadeo pur eluswsy jo uorseaur s,Auoluy
“sueyjeg oy) ur sustedused s,ueraei9G
‘eisy ul snrodusog ‘xa jo WEI

‘srusWIY YInosy? 3893393

pue wieesyg jo dais 38 osnjtey ‘oalsuayo
ueiyueg s,Auoluy ‘(Joquiadeg £) snyo
-oneN] Jo aueg 3e sniadwog “x2g sie2j2p
uerArsg ‘(snIny) asJoao7 [eNIUl Jay
“‘yoonuy 3

eazedoarp pus Auoiuy jo aSerssey ‘sn3u0g
Ul OWDJoOg ‘eNeEd ul sewudury ‘eIs0peddey
Ul snepYoy :s8urTy wasps jo jsUNUIOddy
*(A[n() posapy jo udtas ay3 jo uoNwnsneur
[euss0J pue sntsog fq wiazesnse[ jo asnadez
“BUIS

“SII JO SIEIIC UI PUB 2eWIND YO UEIAEINO
asulede ssaoons snradwog ‘xag “el¥sowES
saimdes Auowwy ‘sniodeg jO yeep pue
suviqiued Joao sniphus, jo Ar01914 Ppuoses

S2utaosg WL

‘Qsndny $1-£1)
yduiniaa 2Jdin sueiaeiG ‘(Arenue( 11)

gz—6z = snue{ jo ajdusa) 243 jo sscop ay Jo Burtsojy 6z
of “H/LXND Sar UeIDUNG!II pasayo uBIAEIIQ. of
1f ‘diys[nsuod pstya s,ustasioQ if
"IS2M\ 242 pur ATI]
JO SUMO} 2} UT UETABIIO 03 UZOMS ArTeAO] JO
YivO [BUOSIDg “UBIABIIO Aq [IM S,AUOIUY jo
voneoyqng ‘suojuy fq tani jo 223001, tf
‘3t24 ay) JO pud ay? 38 asdey aveztawniy3 ay)
€€ JO sJamog ‘diysjnsuos puosas s.uBAnIG ff
of *(saquiaidag £) eaepn{ s2a0 yduiniaa sntsog bf
€f—SE
s¢
“QUNQII} E JO sps1z2UDSO4IPS PI}UBIZ UBIALIIO)
9f ‘aesjawinigay wos snpidsy jo jeaowoy of
L¢ *(zowuns) wMUaIE jo reg LE
*‘Gaquisaogy Lt)
snipnus, jo yduinysy ‘(Asenue £1) vary
pur ueianeg jo adesepy “Asenuel 1 wos
8f s3vof Day 10} sJomod jesrausniaa Jo [eMoUZy gf
>a ‘O'a

Ajeay pus swoy

*(Zoquiaidag
1) foudep uo suruoy saudn{ jo ajdwoay

“un02
[erzoduar 343 Us INOAL JO INO S]]eJ SBUZIOE WY

‘IL-1 S4pQ ‘29BI0F] JO UONEDTIGNg
‘sasomp ayy Buns surZaq pao

*(91—92) Al-11 sas3aq ‘snruadosg

‘vost ay)
jo vonons3su0D s.edduBy ‘0338, jo yItIG
*(f2- gz) pangrpiqesyy aq: SMUANIUA

JO uonssodwo; ‘unSaq snisn3ny jo wind]
-osnepy *(3290190 §) aunejeg 42 UO Ofjody
jo 2]dwa) ay) jo voNeoIpsaqd ‘(sequiaa
-dog) saws uEnay 24) JO UONeIqG>9]29 Iss]
"1 saByq ‘snmuadosg pur £18102

‘13314 jo vonsjdwoy ‘wrsesny sano
-J2}{ pure ofody jo s2jdua) jo uoneso soy
‘umnoy 1 Ax0291A By) DeIOWIWIWOD 0}

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUQ aSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

fz-bz
§z

‘BISY PUE 292935 UI snisn3ny

“mnisedast UNA SET] BI 01 no uas edduBy
*(zt—bz

30) eidorag ul sntuosiag ‘g jo suiedwry
‘BNE[ED JO ONE

-xuur pus snudWwy 30 yi8aq ‘eISOY,P [EA
ay) Ur OKA SNNUDIIL ‘W jO susiedwey
‘eumlosneyy jO Bury apew yy eqnf
“MIP BIQesy 03 snyTED snipay jo usreduse)
‘(Lz ut Jo)

SNI[’D SNI[2UIOD jo Iproins pue yessrwsiq]

‘uredg put ney ur snisn3ny

‘yowsEIED Is31,J 24) puokaq
sue ULWOY JO vONEIoUed pus preqoy,
uendd3gq 242 ul yOAaz jo awayap soyesoWw
-2WWOD snes snypouI0D jo vondu2suy

61-77

itz

tw-$z

§z-9z

br—Lz

‘Biny put eddiZy jo aBesseyy

‘spuouUD BIND

sydaoae ynq 231] 303 drysnsuod pus dryssoin
-dIp sasnyaz srusn3ny ‘evan pus o1darz
jo Aaesidsuos pus snusizg snaep] JO [BIL
“asngnsuososd minisaqaat O

ques 8 usAld eddiBy ‘snqaaaepy 50 yee
‘z9quiaz2q] 6 uo ATjenuus pamouas Jonty
aya ‘2gt] 105 soysazod wr21uNGiss PUL ssvpNsuorosd
Iniom wnisedwt S2ataza3 Atn{ 1 uo pus drys
-[NsUOD ya sUBIsaz ap] *sMasN3ny jo ssouT|]

“TE SqTRS
snysn3ny ‘snuel yo 2[du2) aya Jo ssoop ay)
JO ButsozD ‘snj[a228yy put Br[Ny] JO aeseyy

*(Atnf +) snsse3>D sniurory "Ww jo

ydunuy “70% yBnosya 1 wI2A038 09 148
242 YIM ‘ste2f U2) JO polsad & 303 w2utAosd
B JO werd oy) ‘yrIeam Yeo ay2 ‘snisn3ny
jo osweu oy? usald st apy ‘(Azenutf 91
pus £1) a3euag 24) 23039 suvodde uBABIO_
‘snyouas saris

S2WOI2q UBIAIIO ‘s3079UId BY) 0) mNLUD LED
JO JO3]U09 Jo UINIDY *(¢6z 30) sPssaj0d rs0FuID
JO Www B YI Seyouas 014977 UIB2q pus se2s0f
ieNsuo> ay) aseys edduBy pus usarsyo

‘qdoad uewoy ay)
03 eddiu3y jo syieg aya jo isanbog “(judy
§z) auTIETEg 942 UO EySaA 30 a[duIa1 Jo UONED
“Ipaq *1'11 sassidg] ‘o2eI0H JO uONeoNQng

*(A[nf %) aeasn3ny sioeg sy
aya jo uoneindneuy ‘(oa 11 ‘Atqeqoad ssaq
“JO) sn{faoIBy JO D13B9IY_, B43 JO VONENpIq

‘asnjnra0§ uaesD7) ‘22eI0}{ JO UOIUSOdWO7

*‘Gaquias[aq
$1) xnpay eunyo, jo sey jo UOReaIpag
‘spaepuris urlyueg 243 Jo 43200293 ay)
SWOWSWWO 0} WNIO, Dy) UI sNIsN3ny jo
yay ‘0311, enby ay) jo uononsysuo-y ‘sny
“INQLL, pur (saquiaidag 17) [13314 Jo syavaq

“1 sasidg ‘22010

Jo wonwarqnd (61 30 ¢) “(Ae 21) jouden
2y2 UO IOI} SIE JO 2Jdu23 yo UONeoIpIq

€1

aani2aIYysIy pue wy ‘une

8007 ‘sserg AtssoaTUQ dSsprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

*posapyy Aq vaesae> jo uonemnd

-neuy ‘(g6-d aas ‘0'a 01 Jo ¢) WnuNp4n7z Ie
DETTED S23L 22 JO Jey Wp Jo uoNEsIpag
“(6-11 +2) ostg snrusndye “T

4q umop ind aoesyy, ui Bursry “Auewsac ut
snsniqj ‘sueyeg 2y) ur suZredwied sniaqiy,

‘eluouurg ul sustedwes eddudy

“sn

-iodsog jo 3ury owajog syurodde eddudy
“way

-esnaf systa eddydy ‘aqnueq 24) yoras
pue viseaeg apeaur snsniq] pue sniaqiy
‘aseq ayy ut eddudy ‘ines ur snisn3ny
[NED UI SNITTOT "W Jo 38339q “sdyy aya pue
Ajeay yusou ut easan sniyig “gq jo sudredwe7

‘BOY Ul SayURWIEIED 243 IsUIEdE
snqjeg sniyjaui07 “J jo uSredwez ‘ured
jo vonesyed ayy saiajduwoo eddudy

‘eru
-oWJ YY JO Bury se souesSty, SUMOI>D SNIZIqIT,
“eIyyeg WOIJ splepuLIs ULWOY JO AJDA
-0d9Y "[NED Us ZIqQno32 YIM sjeap eddusy

6-21

€1

€1-91

gi-Li

sooutaolg 2B

‘(yoavyy) eddu3y jo ysagq ‘(yueyy

9) sumixvis xefijuod sauoraq snaisnany
‘smtp ape

Janel 242 ‘pomousl asopnsuos0sd wntsadust
pue sopsojod oiungrsy seddiudy ‘syauniy
ay) snpidzy jo wleaq ‘[nsuod sniaquy

“S24DJNI005 IM] BI JO VONEIG2ID
“elny pue eddidy jo usspyrys oy) ‘sniony
pur sniex ‘suospuesd sty sidope snisn3ny

‘uonesr3aj (eso ueisnnye

“SnJouads O12 IBYIOUY “S045 90d
pinungisg payues3 st ay put sseak aay Joy
pamouas st wmsadus seddudy ‘snisndny
©3 prsusaosrd 241 JO ULIZ IYI JO [PMIUDY

“s[nsuos ay) U229MNI9q
NS 03 puB sassof Ie[nsUOd ey) AJI¥d 01
IYS1s dy2 Jo JUBIZ SWNA;T] e UAIT sMsNdny

A[eay pur swoy

€1

di/gt

‘O’a

‘NS0.J ‘plAg Jo uonsodwoy >—1
‘av

‘DIsOIDW EY S47 “PIAC JO VOIP?
puosas “(Ae 21) 3031) sue jo apdusaa
aya pur waysnTnpy wnso.7 241 JO UONBIPIg 2

‘D2BIO}{ PUE sBU2DIB] JO SYIeAG 8B

“(Ase
-nutf of) aeisn3ny sistg ery 243 Jo UOTIED
ipaq ‘Asoasty s,Aar] jO pug ‘etsojpwE

54h ‘PIAQ JO vOrIpa assy yO UOREQng 6

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUQ aSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

*(¢) auasdZD ur sey DBUE;Y
JO pug ‘BrIssepy 38 Saip JesaeD “] ‘wIUsWIYy
jJO Bury sev payeisus souvzieqoisy ‘sooe)
-BYIYg PUB JESIeD “D UIEMIEG IUZWII3Y

*wintsedwt YIM ISB BYI 02 WIS J”S2BD “D

‘(saovieesyg 30) A saxeezyg 4q pop22>

cons ‘Ay saeesyg Bury UEIYIIEG JO YILIG
“snepayasy

pur sednuy posazy ‘dijmyg suos sry u22M39q
PePIAIp WopSury sip{ “pos>}{ JO req]

“sosuapeuoWO}{
aya asurede smrusing) snisiding jo seme

‘BUDUISY JO J] SoUBIZIL 30 yIwoq ¢

*SNISSQLL JO [Je22Y
*snquog Jo OWlz]Og Jo Yea
‘quie3ng oy) aisurede sudredwes snizaqiL

*(6 ur Aqqeqosd) wnsorqn ery 38 poysrqea
-s2 smisn3ny pur 2woy 03 3eI[y “]UIpI9.E
UB 32338 SZIP Inq SqIq FYI soyrvaz snsmq

‘av

$/$

‘sapoyy Woy sniaqry jo usni2y

‘eruluR) BYyNy XI]
‘sidajaad_ ueoisvid assy 30 usunutoddy
“papixa vin] “synsuean sdasussd JO an aw)
UDAIT St pUL s1/1484 2F0s DYA SOUINSSE JES>E~) “]
‘(Asenaqa,y $) sorarod saj0d yo aan aya u2AId
st pu urede drysynsuos 24) sproy snasn3ny

*s[nsuod Dayns JO U2UIIUIOdds
sein8a3 jo Buruurdogq seynsuaant sdasutsd
apn sy2 Usard st pus syytsea vos BY SouINssE
3Bsae_D “> ‘diysjnsuos aya spjoy snisn3ny

“sapoyy 02 sastias apy ‘sB2k

DAY 10} SHysaod vistungtsy PUTT snyz2qQh},
‘Woy

JO sauor%es w2233N0J ey yO IJvauYsT{qQN)
“sq ‘aquiedng 2y3 3200 yduiniza snis2quL

"play snsus7
‘(saquiaidag 1) s2prq aya snsnagq jo ywaq

‘erpny Arseus
pus eruesdtA 2030AIp 0} ape snaqiy

“snisaqiy Aq e1psoauo
jo ajduza3 ay yo UoNesIpap pur voNEOIsay

‘plac jo Juawysiurg

“smusaquy Aq xnjjog

put soiset jo ajdwia3 ay) jo Burprinqoy

amnDINYIIY puE WY ‘sNIeI2I]

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUA oSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

“snaqyy Aq payfesas st ay yorym
woy; ‘Auews25 ul sudsedwied snojuews95

‘(uuinane) Apaanoedsoz snd
-luewJay pure snsrug Aq ym aeap ‘ouIyYy
242 UO pus eUOUURG UI syoAaI AWwIy

‘AUBWIID
pue [nes ul puswuwsos saye) snotuEWwI95

‘Is230,3 Binqomnay 2y3 ur
SUOITI] 22342 JO SSO] PUe sNaeA SNTVOUINO
“A JO 12j2q “3JOAa uETUOUULY 24) JO pug

“elNeS] Ul OAIY *(snmUIZINd jo sns
-ua2) s2urAo3d & OU! pousn3 esepnf ‘posazy
jO vos ‘snejayay jo ywWourysturg ‘wNd
-LAT]] pur eruouUEY Ut 3JOADI JO yx23qINE

‘2qIg yp sayoeas sni2qry,

"39S JPA dy) SE By se AUEW
-39D) S2PEAUI SNIZIMQIT, “IESIBD “D JO HAG

gist
br

“7a

s2dUTAOsg ZN

*(s2quaidag £) eru0q

-139g ‘az1M asTy snisn3ny jo maydou-yeaI3
pue Asdwog jo uospuw3-i2s3 ‘snsrug
Oqry JO (sojse17u/) UOSeDI) 10} UONITAUOD
“(yore

Ol) smmuxom xeftjuod sauiodeq sni2qiy
“snuunysog

eddudy jo yavaq ‘(sequiaadag £1) stnouoy
DUIAIP Poa0A put (Jaquiaidag A[sea) pesouTy
ayqnd & pajuesd si smasn8ny ‘sdausd
seworsq snueqrL ‘asn8ny 61) ejonN 34.
snasnany jo yeaq “(Aepy 11) ploy anayswry]
“asrqnsuososd wntsodiaét YO JVs & UIAIZ snd
“BWI ‘snysnIny Jo IY) 09 fenba sarow 3.407
-nsuososd wintsodaus pus sx¥ak U22 JO} sopsaj0d
D1IUNGLS JO YUBIZ IdYIINy & USAIT sNIsIqIT,

*(329qQ0290 £2) Yduinisa UeIATT] sNIqLL,

‘poysturg s28un0X 24) en]
‘tIstuBlg 0} poysrueq snusnisog eddudy

“s0p181a aya JO

PUP ssp 1m wWHIsD4ID BNI JO JU2WYsTQUsy
‘ENUIE BIPYy XI] ‘sIBIA UDI

30} spysajod vistungtay JO JU8IB 9yYIITY 8 UZAIT
SNIZIQIT ‘snotuLWIID sidops uN) UI OYA
‘(aunf 9z) snuaqry pus snumsog eddudy
sidope snasn8ny “sasouss 017397 s2yIOUY

Ajeay put swoy

b
‘oa

‘ALOISTY SN[NIIII¥g SNID[2A JO VOREITIGNG

‘pisojevsg 941509 yo Buipring

‘eunwo, sJOg
pur (39qQ019 81) snue[ jo afdusa2 yo uONeD
“$P2C “(2 PAO Jo weaq “Aary jo YEE

8007 ‘sserg AtssoaTUA aSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquie;y

‘eusWY jo seIxey jo yieaq of

‘g]N 19931p sopuN UIyeI st AyDIEII22
sty {posapy jo wos ‘diy jo ywoq (¢) fF

“NSIS 242 JO YOAMY 87
‘soepn[
30 snyrfavsd sousoraq 181g sanuog (2) 92

“SBUIJEJIE], JO YLOp PUB Ie2332q Hz

z-1% *[NES) UI ITAOIDES PUB SNIO]y JO YOABY 17

‘sniurusy JO yyesq *(39q0190
01) yonuy 38 snoIEUaD jo Yiveq, 61
“1d43q sista snziuews25) 61-81
‘poxouut osye u2dewwo0-)
‘souraold & sawoseq epopeddey ‘wmrsadut
Yalan iseq 2y2 02 JUAs SNOTUEWID ‘eIPLNN,
dt Ul seULEIe] ysUIYsE Jem yo yesqing Li

“snqecy 30 diyssor

-S2Un% ‘sny[ecy snIUISY JO 2proing ‘snsnaq
jo wea] *(32qQ0290 81) Buiddudy 30 yisoq
“sytara voy SouNssE

ENB Ye sntes "3923230 UBIOVIHId = se
039] SNIZ0INS 30 IUsUNUIOddY ‘(329q0199
gt) snuvlsg jo weep pus vonsuUNUTg
‘snuslag pus snueqy, jo diysinsuo)
*O12N JO aprding

‘eurd

-dis8y pus snopueuizas jo vos ‘oan jo pus
tulddisdy jo wowysiusg “Bary jo yeoq
‘snqaeqousyy

sNBIWOG "UD 03 393un0, ay wuiddusy
jo aBeaew ‘s2prqy 2M BNE jo WIG

“a8o3d8_ 303 2WOY Srava] sNI2ZqTT
“pasnyas si ‘snsn3q jo mopim ‘(et]n]
etary) Bypary Aszew 02 asanbaz ,snuslog

*(3aquiaidag $1) snsnq jo yI82q

"snsn3] 303 sepsazod vistuNgtsy 30 YUBIS
‘sruedwiey 03 Ajisesodwia) saspes sm
-22Q1], ‘susn3q pus snizaqiy jo diysinsuosy
‘(Avy 82) snsniq jo ydwnisy,

‘OSig sMUINdysD ‘UD jo sprains pus [ei],
“SPATAINS SNfIWID sneqiy AjUO WoYR
jo ‘snsniqj] 328un04 242 03 UIE sUOS LIM],
“sndTUBWIIID pus sNaqry 30 diysjnsuos)

(heyy 92) sndqusws95 jo ydwniy
‘spopeddey) jo snejaysy jo weed

1f
of

wz
1z
ot

oz/61
gt

‘2[IX9 OUT IUIS BIBUIG "2yxe] QuION]
ay) JO Burureap aU) jo pure Enso Iv Jnoqzey
MoU E JO VON NIIsYOD Dy) JO BulUUITag

“snj

-sn3ny snaiq jo 2]dwai 243 jo uonesipaq Lf

ainqooyosJy pues uy ‘anies2WT]

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUA dSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty osprquiey

‘Ore

‘y eddis3y posay jo peaq
‘2ouraold &
opew eypfydueg-e1sA] -ureatsg jo uorseauy

“snUBIUOQIIIS jo Weep pus AdeIIdsuO>D

“SUEIIPUEXZTY 243 0} 39299] sNIpNE[D
‘sIsualzesae> put eUENSUTT JO sadutAosd Jo
uoneziuegso pure eruBainew jo sanbuo>
“‘wayesnial 38

afdway, ay ut pareyd aq 03 anyeis sty szapso
SNIeS) “eIURIDINEW] Ul UOTT]IQ2I jo yeIIqG
“INE ‘UlEIIg JO UOISeAUT UE JOy sUONEIE
-daig *(393u1m) nes) ur snes *] eddy3y
posay] 03 u2aid Aysseuypo sednuy poss}q
“sndq[NIVeD Jo uoMNIexa

pues Adsesidsuoy (3290299) = purjaulyy
24) SUstA snes ‘pasodep sednuy posoy

‘eI pueXaTY Ul SaMUNWWOD
42235 pus ystmaf sy2 useMI0q 2qQnoI]Z,

‘wopZury s.dityg ueard y eddi3y pos2py

“tiahg jo Jou
-32008 ‘snqjau,A “Aq vonessturwpeew
Joy isod sry wosy paaowas aieig snuo0g

b~ov

6¢

SoouTAOsg WY

‘urEILIg jo
aisanbuos 30j ydusnizy jsnipneysy ‘ss0ysaenb
0) ssoyourd wWoIjy pasJojsuen wmlsospy

‘(Aa

-nuel 21) aprazod sajod poute}so3d snipneyD
“snoruuEIIg

jO Yutg ‘(Azenuef §z) snipney jo von
-wweyojg -(Asenue( z) snes jo Jopany

‘Qsn3ny 1£) swoy 02 susnjaz snes
“BUIT[ESSa] S2JeW sNIpNeyD “(Jaquia)
-dag) woy soavay ‘eiuoserD rUOTIW
S2IJEW PUB EUI[NE eI][O] S2270AIpP snes
“Bull

Ned BIO] soisew sen ‘(Jaquaidag fz
‘ounf 01) eyfisnzq jo voneoytap pus YyIvIGg
“Gequisc9q,

$1) OJ2_I Jo YG “(UUININe) sNIEd jo ssouTT
“snyfawmay snis2qry, jo aproing ‘(asn3ny 1f
— Ajnf 1) snes yar [nsuos snipnyyy ‘(AByy
1) JadunoX a2 eo WY jo |vag “(YDB
8%) Meusg aya Aq powsyuosd ‘(yey
Bt) sdouad pourepoe endyep sntesy
*(yoaBy] 91) Wnuast) Je snZIqIL jo yIeIG

Ajeay pus swoy

‘7a

‘wnudey) WN]22e_y By? Jo UONeDIpIq
“piguaMiat) I] “eIDUIG JO VON ITIGng

‘ssropukzojor0d ff ‘e22UIG JO uONwoIIqQng

“o331q enby ay) jo wed Surus0 ‘snip
-neyD jo yary peyduinisy, 243 Jo uoNeoIpoq

8007 ‘sserg Atss9aTUQ dSprquiey G IUTTUGC sooisty ospyquiey

L-9$
$$

t=1$

“jUd2]
2y2 puke erIpnog jo yoasy “eA jo Jou
-12403 paiuiodde ofnqio7 ‘eiopeddes jo
snepyory jo puke porazy jo uospuvs3-12933
‘souvidt] Jo suOIy) 242 03 JUSWIUIOdd: puL
Bluawsy JO uoNesniqns sy) Jo vONe|dwoy

‘ojnqio7y Aq eyza30UTI 91, yo aInideD
‘BlexeUy
sasnidv> pue savepity syoee ojnq3i0y

‘wIUsWIY pur eye IsuIesE
puvWWO> UJaIsva UE 0} paIurodde ojnq1o77

“2u034} dy) 02 pasutodde st sa1ep

“IL, pus eluaWsy JO [031U09 aye) SUEIyUEg
*sasaeZOjOA, Udy) pue SOUOUOA,

Aq papaasons ‘eryyseg JO soz3J¥I0D jo
Yeaq ‘snoeIVIeD sivajap E[Ndeog sni01s—E)

‘s1yeyD jo wop8ury ay) uaald yy eddusy

‘pURpSUTYY 242 ur ojnqzo}
‘a0eI YU], JO UONEXxoUUY

°9

€$

le
9b

‘e1uedaNT DY JO VORININSUT
‘Py

-pusdny JO uONINsUy “euIddudy jo s9pmnyy
ssnnjadaad jnsuos

2q pnoys osayy aey2 esodoad jo uonsalay
‘nsafevad O01 sxorszenb wos) possoysues) wes
-s0aapy “sotasod sajod yo apa aya uaat3 O19N

‘sno1uUBIIIg JO YIvIq
‘OJON JO
uorssao2¥ ‘(32q0I90 £1) snIpNeD JO Ye]

“BIABIDO SOIJILUI OJIN}

‘sumquaans sdasursd JO 2111 By) UIAI3

OJIN *199323d UBNOIDEId sawWos2q snsing
‘sisn3ny soworeq suiddusy
$z) ory sidope snipneyp
"OJ2N

jO 10NI pus s0J2BId saUIOD2q pu rIKI
Wos} suUINIoT wouIg “qwmoy jo simssomcod
aya jo voisuaixg ‘(Asenusf 1) 123unoz,
aya suiddudy pus snipnep jo adensey
STIS “D

PUT eULEssapy JO UORNNDIx9 pus TewlEW,
"$a40jHIaD$ IPAJ JO UOIEIG>]2°)

‘SMITA “T pus snipnes jo diyssosuxy
‘ulBIg

jo isanbuod soy snnnerg sniny jo uoNtAG

‘(Aenqay

99
65
gs
9s
$$
$s

£$

6r
ar
e-lb

*snluOIIag JO WEI

“UEIN'] PUe BIIUag jo syIeIG
‘Woy

jO voRoNIIsUOIaZ pUE sNUUTKBYY sNdII7) 2Y2
Jo Sutpyingas ‘pasnp smwoq 24) 30 Buipting
‘ptsopssuds | SAMO] BY) JO UONIDNIISAq

*(¢9 Ajqissod 30)
DEURIUOIIN] DeWIDY], ZY? JO UONINIISUO7)

ainwoaIIYIZIY pus Uy ‘InN eI9I']

8007 ‘sserg AtssoaTUQ aSprquiey G IUTTUGC sowoisty ospyquivy

8-b9

seoepnf pure ends ut

Auwuze aya fq vay) pur (A[nf 1) epurxary 2e
sorsdura pouneprosd uersedsa,a ‘suvianeg
ay) pUe sITIA) Jo yoasy ‘suorZs] uew
“395 ay? hq Josadua pawsyepsosd sno,
‘eqyesy isuleSe 3JOAD3 UT suoIda] UEWIID
“BOIIFY Ul IDV] SNIPOTD Jo 3oady “(Sursds
ae]) XepuIA JO eploins puE onuos>,
jo aaeg ‘(judy £ 10 z) utedg ur sdoon
sty fq pausrepsoe eqyes ‘nes ul xapur,~
JO YOAdY ‘Woyesniaf 49e22e 02 sasedoid pus
BaVUINP] puL vIZEWES saonpos uLIsedsoA
*(Azen3q2.4) eaepn[ ut Jem ay) jo

puewwod us 23832] se payurodde ueisedso,
‘soupn(

Ul OAR JO yEIIqGINO ‘oploins dWWOD
0} paryonsisul O[Nqs07) ‘s39yI0Iq ITUOIIDg
24) JO syreop puke Ad¥I1dsu07) *(P99'd 20s ‘Lo
JO 4) 299935 Jo WOPr273 ay3 susTe[DOId O12

“BEES
ovr sniuog jo wopZury jo UONeIods02uT

‘elopuryy 38 sasaeJojO A 0} sJopuss

-Ing ‘emopedde 03 quas snjzeg sniuUasoED,
“BIshg SUd}EIyI

sasaeZ0]OA ‘aUaqeIPy sopeaul souesSty,

$—t9

S2DUTAOIg TUL

‘(Qunf{) suroy s393u2 pur (jsdy 61) aivuas
aya Aq sismod yenoduy posues3 sno,
‘(judy 91) oproms syuwos pus (judy +1)
umaetpog yz sdoos) snijata Aq poavojap
ONIC “eqIed JO Jopsnyy ‘(Asenuel $1) psend
ueioserd ay Aq sdasutsd pauirejooid oO

*(uuINI ne) DWoY 28 SdAIIIE
eqies ‘sdaussd sk eqiey jo vonewrporg
‘(eunf 11 Ajqissod 30 6) o32N Jo Peg
“XOPUTA JO YOADI dy) JO SMouU_ SoATDI0I
sajdeny ul ory pus A]e2]7 0) suINIDI OJIN

‘2WOY UT BIUDUIZY jo Bury

P2UMOID SrIEPIITT ‘BuNEssay eITNBIG Sol
“JEU OJON “snueituta jo Aoestdsuos ‘snu
-830G ¥BIIEG PUB SNIZg BasEIY] JO syIvIWG
“BUIqes

vaeddog jo ystaq ‘B92Ud¢ Jo yIvIq ‘([Udy)
osig 30 Adesdsuo ‘urede pray suosany

*ADU2IIND 943

JO WIOJDIY ‘SUBNSIYD By) Jo UONEZIWNIITA
‘(Ajnf 61/g1) awoy ur azy jo yeaIqQINC
‘eysndny eipnery se paytop ‘soeddog

pUE OJdN JO JoIysnep jo yep pus ywIgG
*saBzey> s0jsarpus JO UVONINPOIU]

‘Bd9USg JO JWouUIOINE ‘snJing jo yIweEq
*(aunf 6) eta812G jo UONNDexgq ‘vuIqes word
-dog solsieus pur BIABIIQ S29J0AIP OJON,

Ajea] pus swoy

£9

8007 ‘sserg AIszaaTU A) osprquiey G sUTUO sooisTp] ospraquie7)

‘Qsn3ny)
ajdwaz ayy sfonsap pue woayesnsof
soznadea pur syaene sn] “yOAas UElALIEg
dYI sIVajap sipesD sMyNIq “JOINT, sniNy
PUL snoissefy snI[N] jo wnsvryDD wnrsaduy OL

‘(JauIuNs) sWOY UI
edsaa jo [BAIIIY ‘[NSUOD & JO wntsedut
ya Joyovid ueqin spew uenwog
sodsay o1saduar ap x4 DY) JO VONEITIQNg
iad se 2yeUag ay) Aq paussyuod urised
, ‘(Asenue{) swoy ut saatze snuepony

(s29quiazaq] 12% JO oz) sna A,
apinw ‘swoY s32jua snug sNniuoIUYy
40199 $2z/>z) euoWaI_D Jo aL3eq PuodZIg

AA
AeA
AAES

A AntHung
A_ArchHung
AAS
AAWM

ABAW

ABSA
AC
AClass

Acta ArchLov
ADA

AEA
AFLN

AAHB
AHDE
AION (Archaeol. )

AJA
AJAH
AJPh

AJS Review
AN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABBREVIATIONS

Archaologischer Anzeiger

Antike und Abendland

Publications of an American Archaeological Expedition to
Syria 1899-1900. New York

Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes

Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Mainz,
geistes- und soxialwissenschaftliche Klasse

Abhbandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften

Annual of the British School at Athens

L’ Antiquité classique

Acta Classica. Proceedings of the Classical Association of
South Africa

Acta Archaeologica Lovanensia

S. Riccobono, Acta Divi Augusti. Rome, 1945
L'année épigraphique

Archivo Espatiol de Arqueologia

Annali della Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia della Universita
di Napoli

Ancient History Bulletin

Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espatol

Annali dell Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli.
Seminario di Studi del Mondo classico. Sezione di
Archeologia e Storia antica.

F. F. Abbott, A. C. Johnson, Municipal Administration
in the Roman Empire. Princeton, 1926

American Journal of Archaeology

American Journal of Ancient History

American Journal of Philology

Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies

D.C. Braund, Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on
Roman History 31 B.c. — A.D. 68. London and Sydney,
1985

1006

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AncSoc

Anw

Annales ESC
AnnDept AntigJordan
ANRW

AntAfr
APF

AR
ArchCant
ArchClass
Archlug
ArchLaz
ArchRep

ArchS
ArhbVestnik
ARID
ARS

ASAA
ASAW
ASNP

ASS
AU
AW
BAA
BABesch
BAGB
BAR
BASOR

BASP
Bay V orgeschichtsbl
BCAR

BCH
BAA

BEFAR
BGU

ABBREVIATIONS 1007

Ancient Society

Ancient World

Annales (Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations)

Annual of the Jordan Department of Antiquities

H. Temporini, W. Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und
Niedergang der rimischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur
Roms im Spiegel der neneren Forschung. Berlin and New
York, 1972- -

Antiquités africaines

Archiv fir Papyrusforschung

Africa romana

Archaeologia Cantiana

Archaeologia Classica

Archaeologia Iugoslavica

Archaeologia Laziale

Archaeological Reports. London, Council of the Society of
Hellenic Studies and Management Committee of the British
School of Archaeology at Athens

Archéologie der Schweiz

Arheolothi Vestnik

Analecta Romana Instituti Danici

A. C. Johnson et al., Ancient Roman Statutes. Austin,
1961

Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle
Missioni Italiane in Oriente

Abhandlungen der Sachsischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Leipzig

Annali della Scuola Normale di Pisa, classe di lettere e
filosofia

Archivio Storico Siciliano

Der altsprachliche Unterricht

Antike Welt

Bulletin d archéologie algérienne

Bulletin Antieke Beschaving

Bulletin de P Association Guillaume Budé

British Archaeological Reports

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research in
Jerusalem and Baghdad

Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists
Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblatter

Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale in
Roma

Bulletin de correspondance hellénique

Bollettino d Arte del Ministero per i beni culturali e
ambientali

Bibliotheque des écoles frangaises d Athénes et de Rome
Agyptische Urkunden aus den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin,
Griechische Urkunden. Berlin, 1895—

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

1008
BLAL

BiAr
BICS

BIDR
BJ
BMCPhoenicia

BMCRE
BMCRR
BRGK

BS AO
BSEAA

BSNAF
Bull.ép

BrN

CAH

CAR

CBA ResRep
CBQ

CCG

ChLA

CHM
CIA
CIG
cl
CIL

cIS
CISA

|
ClAnt
Class]
CerM
CPh

ABBREVIATIONS

Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology of the University of
London

The Biblical Archaeologist

Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University
of London

Bullettino delf Istituto di Diritto Romano

Bonner Jabrbiicher

Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum, Phoenicia.
London, 1910

H. Mattingly et a/., Coins of the Roman Empire in the
British Museum. London, 1923-

H. A. Grueber, Coins of the Roman Republic in the
British Museum. London, 1910

Bericht der Rémisch-Germanischen Kommission des
Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts

Bulletin de la société des antiquaires de [’ Ouest

Boletin del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueologia,
Valladolid

Bulletin de la société nationale des antiquaires de France

J. and L. Robert, Bulletin épigraphique. Paris, 1972-
Beitrage zur Namenforschung

The Cambridge Ancient History

Cahiers d’archéologie Romande

Council for British Archaeology, Research Reports
Catholic Biblical Quarterly

Cahiers du Centre G. Glotz

Chronique d’ Egypte

A. Bruckner, R. Marichal, Chartae Latinae Antiquiores.
Olten and Lausanne, 195 4-

Cahiers d'histoire mondiale

W. Dittenberger, A. Kirchhoff, J. Kirchner, U.
Koehler, Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum. Berlin, 1873—
95

A. Boeckh, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Berlin,
1828-77

J. B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum. Rome,
1936-75

T. Mommsen ef a/., Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.
Berlin, 1863—

Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, Paris, 1881-1951
Contributi dell Istituto di Storia Antica dell Universita del
Sacro Cuore, Milano

P. Kriiger, Codex Justinianus, 1877

Classical Antiquity

Classical Journal

Classica et Mediaevalia

Classical Philology

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CP]
CPL

ce
CR
CRAI

CRR

CSCA
CSDIR
CSSH
CTh
CV

D
DAF
DArch
DE

DHA
Diadora
EA

EAA
EE

Ej?

EMC

Entretiens Hardt
EPRO

EpStud

EtPap

ESAR

FGrH

FHG

FIRA

ABBREVIATIONS 1009

V. A. Tcherikover ef al., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum.
Jerusalem, 1957-64

R. Cavenaile, Corpus Papyrorum Latinarum.
Wiesbaden, 1958

Classical Quarterly

Classical Review

Comptes rendus de ? Académie des inscriptions et belles
lettres

E. A. Sydenham, The Coinage of the Roman Republic.
London, 1952

California Studies in Classical Antiquity

Centro Studie Documentazione sulf Italia Romana
Comparative Studies in Society and History

T. Mommsen, Codex Theodosianus. Berlin, 1905
Classical Views [= EMC]

T. Mommsen, Digesta Justiniani Augusti. Berlin, 1870
Documents d’archéologie francaise

Dialoghi di archeologia

E. de Ruggiero, Dizionario Epigrafico di antichita
romana, Rome, 1895-1988

Dialogues d'histoire ancienne

Glasilo arheolofkoga Muzeja u Zadru

Epigraphica Anatolica

Enciclopedia d’arte antica. Rome, 1958-85

Ephemeris Epigraphica. Corporis inscriptionum Latinarum
supplementum, edita iussu Instituti Archaeologici Romani.
Berlin, 1872-9, 1903-13

V. Ehrenberg, A. H. M. Jones, Documents Illustrating
the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. 2nd edn. Oxford,
1975

Etudes de lettres. Bulletin de la Faculté des Lettres de

P Université de Lausanne et de la Société des Etudes et
Lettres

Echos du monde classique [= CV]

Entretiens sur P antiquité classique, Fondation Hardt.
Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1952 —

Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire
romain

Epigraphische Studien

Etudes de Papyrologie

T. Frank et al., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. 5
vols. Baltimore, 193 3—40

F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker.
Berlin and Leiden, 1923 —

C. Miller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Patis,
1841-70

S. Riccobono ef a/., Fontes Iuris Romani Anteiustiniani.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

1orTo

IDR
IEJ
IF_AO Mémoires
IG
IGBulg
IGLS
IGRR
ITItal
a)
Tord
ILAfr
ILA
ILER
ILGN
ILGR

ILIug

ABBREVIATIONS

2nd edn. Florence 1940-3

Grazer Beitrage

E. M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates
of Gaius, Claudius and Nero. Cambridge, 1967
Géttingische gelehrte Anzeigen

Geographical Journal

Greece and Rome

Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies

Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht

Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine: Arhelogija
Heidelberger althistorische Beitrage und epigrapische
Studien

Habis: arqueologia, filologia clasica. Sevilla, Universidad
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

Harvard Theological Review

Illinois Classical Studies

D. M. Pippidi, I. I. Russu, Inscriptiones Daciae
Romanae. Bucharest, 1977—

Israel Exploration Journal

Institut francais & archéologie orientale, Mémoires

A. Kirchhoff et al., Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin 1873—
G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae.
Sofia, 1956-66

L. Jalabert, R. Mouterde et a/., Inscriptions grecques et
latines de la Syrie. Beirut, Paris, 1929— [see also [Jord]
R. Cagnat et al., Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas
pertinentes. Paris, 1901-27

V. Bracco et al., Inscriptiones Italiae. Rome, 193 1-
Irish Jurist

P.-L. Gatier, Inscriptions de la Jordanie, 2, Amman,
Ammanitis et Jordan central, Paris, 1986 [=IGLS vol.
XxI]}

R. Cagnat, A. Merlin, L. Chatelain, Inscriptions latines
d’ Afrique (Tripolitanie, Tunisie et Maroc). Paris, 1923
S Gsell, H.-G. Pflaum, Inscriptiones latines de [ Algérie.
Paris, 1922-

J. Vives, Inscripcions latinas de la Espatia romana.
Barcelona, 1971-2

Inscriptiones latines de la Gaule Narbonnaise 1, J. Gascou,
M. Janon. Fréjus, 1985

M. SaSel Kos, Inscriptiones Latinae in Graecia repertae:
additamenta ad CIL III. Faenza, 1979

A. and J. Sagel, Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia
... repertae et editae sunt. Inter annos MCMXL et
MCML-X (Situla 5, 1963); Inter MCMLX et
MCMLX*X (Situla 19, 1978); Inter MCMII et
MCMXL (Situla 25, 1986). Ljubljana

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ILLRP
ILS
ILTG

ILTun
IMagnesia

IMS

InserCret

TPhil
IRB
IRC
IRPC
IRT
ISM

JACT]

ABBREVIATIONS IOI!

A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae.
2nd edn. 2 vols. Florence, 1957-63

H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. 3 vols. Berlin
1892-1916

P. Wuilleumier, Inscriptions latines des Trois Gaules
(Gallia suppl. XVII, Paris, 1963)

A. Merlin, Inscriptions latines de la Tunisie. Paris, 1944
O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander.
Berlin, 1900

F. Papazoglu, Inscriptions de la Mésie supérieure.
Belgrade, 1976—

M. Guarducci, Inscriptiones Creticae. Rome, 1935-50
A. and E. Bernand, Inscriptions grecques de Philae. Paris,
1969

S. Mariner-Bigorra, Inscripciones romanas de Barcelona
lapidarias y musivas. Barcelona, 1973

G. Fabre, M. Mayer, I. Roda, Inscriptions romaines de
Catalogne I: Barcelone sauf Barcino. Paris, 1984-5

J. Gonzalez, Inscripciones romanas de la Provincia de
Cadiz. Cadiz, 1982

J. M. Reynolds, J. B. Ward-Perkins, The Inscriptions of
Roman Tripolitania. Rome, 1952

D. M. Pippidi, I. I. Russu, Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris
Graecae et Latinae, 1-. Bucharest, 1980~

Journal of the Joint Association of Classical Teachers
Journal of the American Oriental Society

Jahrbuch der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
Journal of Biblical Literature

Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

Journal of Field Archaeology

Journal of Hellenic Studies

Journal of Juristic Papyrology

Journal of Jewish Studies

Jahrbuch fiir Numismatik und Geldgeschichte

Jabreshefte des Osterreichischen Archdologischen Instituts in
Wien. Vienna 1898- |

Journal of Religion

Journal of Roman Archaeology

Journal of the Royal Geographical Society

Journal of Roman Studies

Journal des Savants

Journal for the Study of Judaism

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

Journal of Theological Studies

Libya Antiqua

Liverpool Classical Monthly

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

MAMA
MChr
MDAI (D)
MDAAI (1)
MDAI (M)
MDAI(R)

Mal
MEFRA

MH
Milet
MMAI

MonArtAnt
MPAL
MPAA

MRR

MUS]
MW

MZ
NC
NSe
NTH

NTS
OGIS

ORF

ABBREVIATIONS

Les études classiques

Listy Filologichké

Libyan Studies

Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome

Mémoires del’ Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres
Memorie del? Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, classe di
Sstienze morali e storiche

W. M. Calder, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiquae.
Manchester, 1928—

L. Mitteis, Grundziige und Chrestomathie der
Papyruskunde, Juristischer Teil, 11. Leipzig—Berlin, 1912
Mitteilingen des Deutschen Archdaologischen Instituts
(Station Damaskus)

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts

( Abteilung Istanbul)

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdaologischen Instituts

( Abteilung Madrid)

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts
(Rémische Abteilung)

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts
Mélanges d’archéologie et d’ histoire de l’école francaise de
Rome

Museum Helveticum

Milet 1. Berlin, 1908-28

Monuments et mémoires publiés par |’ Académie des
inscriptions et belles lettres

Monumenta artis antiquae

Museum Philologicum Londiniense

Atti della Pontificia Accademia romana di Archeologia,
Ser. Ila, Memorie

T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman
Republic (Philological Monographs of the American
Philological Association, no. 15, Cleveland, 195 1—86)
Meélanges de [ Université St Joseph

M. McCrum and A. G. Woodhead, Select Documents of
the Principates of the Flavian Emperors. Cambridge,
1961

Mainzer Zeitschrift

Numismatic Chronicle

Notizie degli Scavi di Antichita

E. M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates
of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian. Cambridge, 1966

New Testament Studies

W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. 4
vols. Leipzig, 1903-5

H. Malcovati, Oratorum Romanorum fragmenta, 3«d
edn. Turin, 1967

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ORom
PAAJR
PACA
PAES

P.APhs
PBA
PBSR
PCPAS
PDaura

PECS

PEQ
PFay

PIR

PKéln
PMich

POxy
PP

PeP
PRy/

PYadin

RAL

RAN
RBPS
RCCM
RDGE

ABBREVIATIONS 1013

Opuscula Romana: Acta Instituti Romani Regni Seuciae
Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research
Proceedings of the African Classical Associations

Syria: Publications of the Princeton University
Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1904-3 and 1909.
Leiden

Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
Proceedings of the British Academy

Papers of the British School at Rome

Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society

C. B. Welles, R. O. Fink, J. F. Gilliam, The
Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report v, Part I,
The Parchments and Papyri. New Haven, 1959.

R. Stillwell, W. L. MacDonald, M. H. McAllister,
Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton, 1976
Palestine Exploration Quarterly

B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, D. G. Hogarth, Fayam
Towns and their Papyri. London, 1900

E. Klebs e¢ a/., Prosopographia Imperii Romani. Berlin
1897-8; 2nd edn, 1933—

Die Kélner Papyri. Opladen 1975—-

C. C. Edgar, A. E. R. Boak, J. G. Winter et a/., Papyri
in the University of Michigan Collection. Ann Arbor, 1931-
The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. London, 1898—

La parola del passato

Past and Present

A. S. Hunt, J. de M. Johnson, V. Martin, C. H.
Roberts, E. G. Turner, Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in
the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Manchester,
1911-52

N. Lewis, Y. Yadin, J. C. Greenfield, The Documents
from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek
Papyri (including Aramaic and Nabataean Signatures and
Subscriptions). Jerusalem, 1989

Quaderni di Archeologia della Libia

Quaderni di Storia

Quaderni Ticinesi

Revue archéologique

Revue archéologique du centre de la France consacrée aux
antiquités nationales de Auvergne etc.

Rendiconti dell’ Accademia dei Lincei, Classe di Scienze
morali, storiche e filologiche

Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise

Revue belge de philologie et d histoire

Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale

R. K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East.
Baltimore, 1969

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

1014

RDM
RE

REA

REG

REL

RevAfr

Rev ArchOunest
RFIC

RHD

RHDFE
RAM
RIB

RIC

RIDA
RIG

RIL
RIU

RwArchCr
RMD

RMR

ABBREVIATIONS

Revue des Denx Mondes

A. F. von Pauly et a/., Real-Encyclopadie der klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft. Seattgart 1894-

Revue des études anciennes

Revue des études grecques

Revue des études latines

Revue africaine

Revue archéologique de ’ Ouest

Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica

Res Gestae Divi Augusti

Revue de l'histoire du droit (= Tijdschrift voor
Rechtsgeschiedenis )

Revue historique de droit francais et étranger

Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie

R. G. Collingwood, R. P. Wright, Roman Inscriptions
of Britain. Oxford, 1965—

H. B. Mattingly, E. A. Sydenham, Rowman Imperial
Coinage. London, 1923-

Revue internationale des droits de Pantiquité

Recueil des inscriptions gauloises (Gallia, Suppl. 45, Paris,
1985 -: P.-M. Duval, G. Pinault, Les Calendriers, 1985;
M. Lejeune, Textes gallo-étrusques, Textes gallo-latins sur
pierre, 1988)

Rendiconti del Istituto Lombardo di scienze e lettere, Classe
di lettere

L. Barkéczi, A. Mécsy, Die rémische Inschriften
Ungarns. Budapest, 1972—

Ruvista di Archeologia Cristiana

M. M. Roxan, Roman Military Diplomas, 1954-77 and
1977-84 (University of London, Institute of
Archaeology, Occasional Publications, nos. 2 and 9,
1978 and 1985)

R. O. Fink, Roman Military Records on Papyrus
(Philological Monographs of the American
Philological Association, no. 26, Cleveland, 1971)
Revue numismatique

Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di
Archeologia

Revue de Philologie

M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage.
Cambridge, 1976

Rivista storica dell antichita

Rivista storica italiana

Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten

F. Preisigke, F. Bilabel, Sammelbuch griechischer
Urkunden aus Agypten. Strassburg 191 5—
Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, philos.-hist. Klasse

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SCI
SCO
SDHI
SE
SEG
SIG

SMSR
SNG von Aulock

StClasice
SymbOsl
SZ
TabPomp

TabVindol

TAM
TAPA
TLL
TransPhilSoc
UBH]
VAHD

VerhandAkWet

WCahr

WA
ws

YCS
ZDPalV
ZPE
ZRG

wh wn

GENERAL STUDIES 101§

Scripta Classica Israelica

Studi Classici e Orientali

Studia et documenta historiae et iuris

Studi Etruschi

Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum

W. Dittenberger, Sy/oge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 31d
edn. 4 vols. Leipzig 1915-24

Studie Materiali di Storia delle Religioni

Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland, Sammlung
von Aulock

A. S. Hunt, C. C. Edgar, Select Papyri. London and
New York, 1932-4

Studii Clasice

Symbolae Osloenses

see ZRG

L. Bove, Documenti processuali dalle Tabulae Pompeianae
di Murecine. Naples, 1979

A. K. Bowman, J. D. Thomas, Vindolanda: the Latin
Writing-Tablets (Britannia Monograph Series no. 4,
London, 1983)

E. Kalinka e¢ a/., Tituli Asiae Minoris. Vienna, 1901—
Transactions of the American Philological Association
Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Leipzig 1890—

Transactions of the Philological Society

University of Birmingham Historical Journal

Viyesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku (continuation
of Bull. Dalm.)

Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Akademie voor
Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgié,
Klasse der Letteren

U. Wilcken, Grundzsige und Chrestomathie der
Papyruskunde, Historischer Teil, u. Leipzig—Berlin, 1912
Wirzburger Jabrbiicher fir die Altertumswissenschaft
Wiener Studien

Yale Classical Studies

Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins

Zeitschrift fir Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte

A. GENERAL STUDIES

. Abaecherli Boyce, A. ‘The origin of ornamenta triumphalia’, CP4 37
(1942) 130-41

. Balsdon, J. P. V. D. Romans and Aliens. London, 1979

. Beard, M. and Crawford, M. H. Rome in the Late Republic. London, 1985

. Beloch, K. H. Die Bevilkerung der griechisch-rémischen Welt. Leipzig, 1886

. Béranger, J. Recherches sur Paspect idéologique du principat. Basel, 1953

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

1016

onl

12,
13.
14.

16.
17.
18.
19.

20.

21.
22.

23.
24.
25.

26,

27.
28.
29.

30.

31.
32.

33-

34.

35-

A. GENERAL STUDIES

. Blagg, T. and Millet, M. (eds.) The Early Roman Empire in the West.

Oxford, 1990

. Bradford, J. S. Ancient Landscapes. London, 1957
. Braund, D.C. Augustus to Nero: a Sourcebook on Roman History 31 B.C.—A.D.

68. London and Sydney, 1985

. Brunt, P. A. Italian Manpower 225 B.C.—A.D. 14. Oxford, 1971
. Brunt, P. A. Review of Syme, R. Roman Papers 111 (Oxford, 1984), CR 34

(1984) 349-50

. Brunt, P. A. The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays. Oxford,

1988

Brunt, P. A. Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford, 1990

Cairns, F. Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry. Edinburgh, 1972
Charles-Picard, G. Augustus and Nero. The Secret of Empire (transl. by L.
Ortzen). London, 1966

. Chaumont, M. ‘L’Arménie entre Rome et I’Iran. 1. De l’avénement

d’ Auguste a l’avénement de Dioclétien’, ANRW II, 9.1 (1976) 71-194
Chisholm, K. and Ferguson, J. The Augustan Age. Oxford, 1981

Clark, C. G. and Haswell, M. R. The Economics of Subsistence Agriculture.
4th edn. London, 1970

Corradi, G. Studi ellenistici. Turin, 1929

Debevoise, N. C. A Political History of Parthia. Chicago, 1938; repr. 1968
Deroux, C. (ed.) Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History (Coll.
Latomus 164, 168, 180, 196) Brussels, 1979-86

Dilke, O. A. W. The Roman Land Surveyors. Newton Abbot, 1971
Dudley, D. R. Urbs Roma. London, 1967

Dudley, D. R. (ed.) Silver Latin: 1. Neronians and Flavians. London, 1972
Duncan-Jones, R. The Economy of the Roman Empire. Quantitative Studies.
Cambridge 1974, 2nd edn 1982

Dyson, S. L. ‘Native revolts in the Roman Empire’, Hist. 20 (1971)
239-74

Esser, A. Casar und die julisch-claudischen Kaiser im biologisch-artztlichen
Blickfeld (Janus Suppl. 1). Leiden, 1958

Finley, M. I. (ed.) Studies in Roman Property. Cambridge, 1976

Finley, M. I. Politics in the Ancient World. Cambridge, 1983

Fraser, P. M. and Matthews, E. (eds.) A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names,
1. Oxford, 1987

Friedlaender, L. Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms. 10th edn. 4
vols. Leipzig, 1922

Gabba, E. ‘The historians and Augustus’, in c 176 61-88

Gapp, K. S. ‘Famine in the Roman world from the founding of Rome to
the time of Trajan’. Diss., Princeton, 1934

Garnsey, P. Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to
Risk and Crisis. Cambridge, 1988

Garnsey, P. and Saller, R. The Roman Empire. Economy, Society and Culture.
London, 1987

Garzetti, A. From Tiberius to the Antonines (English transl.). London, 1974

. Gaudemet, J. ‘A propos d’un “‘héritage” romain des monarchies

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

37-
. Gilbert, R. Die Beziehungen zwischen Prinzeps und stadtrimischer Plebs im

39-
39A.
40.
41.
42.
43-
. Hatzfeld, J. Les trafiquants italiens dans Porient hellénique. Paris, 1919
45-

46.

47.
48.

49.
50.
51.
52.
53-
$4.

54a.

55.
5A.

60.

61.
62.

A. GENERAL STUDIES 1O17

hellénistiques’, Ktema 3 (1978) 165—75 (= Les gouvernants a Rome (Antiqua

31) 133~43. Naples, 1985)
Gianfrotta, P.-A. and Pomey, P. Archeologia subacquea. Milan, 1981

friben Prinzipat. Bochum, 1976

Giovannini, A. Consulare Imperium (Schweiz. Beitrige zur Alter-
tumswissenschaft 16). Basel, 1983

Gold, B. K. (ed.) Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome. Austin,
TX, 1982

Greene, K. The Archaeology of the Roman Economy. London, 1986

Gros, P. and Torelli, M. Storia delf urbanistica. I! mondo romano. Bati, 1988
Hackett, J. Warfare in the Ancient World. London, 1989

Hammond, M. The Antonine Monarchy. Rome, 1959

Hopkins, K. Conquerors and Slaves. Soctological Studies in Roman History .
Cambridge, 1978

Hopkins, K. Death and Renewal. Sociological Studies in Roman History 11.
Cambridge, 1983

Jones, A. H. M. Studies in Roman Government and Law. Oxford, 1960
Jones, A. H. M. The Roman Economy, Studies in Ancient Economic and
Administrative History (ed. P.A. Brunt). Oxford, 1974

Juster, J. Les Juifs dans Pempire romain. 2 vols. Paris, 1914

Kahler, H. Rom und seine Welt. 2 vols. Munich, 1958—Go

Kahler, H. Rom und sein Imperium. Baden-Baden, 1962 (= Rome and her
Empire. London, 1963)

Kloft, H. ‘Aspekte der Prinzipatsideologie im friihen Prinzipat’, Gyn.
91 (1984) 307-26

Kraft, K. Gesammelte Aufsdtze zur antiken Geschichte und Militargeschichte.
Darmstadt, 1973

Kroll, W. Die Kultur der ciceronischen Zeit. 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1933 (reissued
in 1 vol., 1963)

Die Kultur der augusteischen Zeit (collected papers of a conference) K/io 67.1
(1985)

Kunkel, W. Kleine Schriften. Weimar, 1974

Lefévre, E. (ed.) Monumentum Chiloniense. Studien zur augusteischen Zeit
(Festschr. Burck). Amsterdam, 1975

. Lloyd, G. E. R. Greek Science after Aristotle. New York—London, 1973

57:
58.

59-

Luttwak, E. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. Baltimore, 1976
Martino, F. de. Storia della costituzione romana 1v,1. Naples, 1974

Millar, F. The Emperor in the Roman World (31 3.c.—a.D. 337). London,
1977

Millar, F. ‘The Mediterranean and the Roman revolution: politics, war
and the economy’, P ¢” P 102 (1984) 3-24

Millar, F. The Roman Empire and its Neighbours. 2nd edn. London, 1981
Misurare la terra. Centuriazione e coloni nel mondo romano. L’organizzazione del
territorio in epoca romana. Modena, 1983

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

1018

63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
Jo.

71.
72.
73-

734.

733.
74:

75:
. Prosopographia Imperii Romani t—-1v edited by E. Groag and A. Stein; v

77:

78.

79:
80.
81.

82A.
83.

84.
. Rykwert, J. The Idea of a Town. The Anthropology of Urban Form in Rome,

86.

87.
88.

89.

A. GENERAL STUDIES

Momigliano, A. D. Alien Wisdom: the Limits of Hellenization. Cambridge,
1975

Momigliano, A. D. Terzo contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo
antico (Storia e Letteratura 108/9). Rome, 1966

Mommsen, T. Rémisches Staatsrecht. Vols. rand 11 3rd edn, Leipzig, 1887;
vol. 111, Leipzig 1888

Nicolet, C. Le métier de citoyen dans la Rome républicaine. Paris, 1976; transl.
as A 68

Nicolet, C. Rome et la conquéte du monde méditerranéen. 2 vols. Paris, 1977;
2nd edn. 1 vol. Paris, 1979

Nicolet, C. The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome. London, 1980
Nicolet, C. L’inventaire du monde. Géographie et politique aux origines de
Empire romain. Paris, 1988; transl. as A 70

Nicolet, C. Space, Geography and Politics in the Early Roman Empire. Ann
Arbor, 1991

Nippel, W. Aafrubr und‘ Polizei’ in der romischen Republik. Stuttgart, 1988
Ogilvie, R. M. Roman Literature and Society. Brighton, 1980

Peters, F. E. The Harvest of Hellenism. London, 1972

Pippidi, D. M. (ed.) Assimilation et résistance a la culture gréco-romaine dans le
monde ancien. Bucharest—Paris, 1976

‘Politics and art in Augustan literature’, Arethusa 5.1 (1972)
Premerstein, A. von Vom Werden und Wesen des Principats (ABAW 15).
Munich, 1937

Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton, 1975

edited by L. Petersen. Berlin—Leipzig, 193 3—

Purcell, N. ‘Maps, lists, money, order and power’, JRS 80 (1990) 178-82
Quinn, K. ‘Poet and audience’, ANRW 1, 30.1 (1982) 75-180
Rawson, E. D. Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic. London, 1985
Reinhold, M. The Golden Age of Augustus. Toronto, 1978

Rich, J. W. Declaring War in the Roman Republic in the Period of Transmarine
Expansion (Coll. Latomus 149). Brussels, 1976

. Ridley, R. T. ‘Pompey’s command in the 50s: how cumulative?’, RAM

126 (1983) 136-48

La rivoluzione romana: inchiesta tra gli antichisti (Biblioteca di Labeo 6).
Naples, 1982

Rostovtzeff, M. I. Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. 2nd
edn. 2 vols. Oxford, 1957

Rowell, H. T. Rome in the Augustan Age. Norman, OK, 1962

Italy and the Ancient World. Princeton, 1976

Sherk, R. K. The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian (Translated
Documents of Greece and Rome 6). Cambridge, 1988

Sherwin-White, A. N. The Roman Citizenship. 2nd edn. Oxford, 1973
Sherwin-White, A. N. “The Lex Repetundarum and the political ideas of
Gaius Gracchus’, JRS 72 (1982) 18-31

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Foreign Policy in the East. London, 1984

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

90.
91.
92.
. Syme, R. The Roman Revolution. Oxford, 1939
94.
95-
OSA.
96.
97-
. Veyne, P. Le pain et le cirque. Paris, 1976
99-

100.

Iol.
102,

103.
104.

105,
106.

107.
107A.
108,
109.

110.

II.

ANCIENT AUTHORS 1019

Ste Croix, G. E. M. de The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World.
London, 1981

Stier, H. E. ‘Augustusfriede und rémische Klassik’, ANRW u1, 2 (1975)
3-54 (=Kleine Schriften, Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie 109,
Meisenheim, 1979)

Sullivan, J. P. Literature and Politics in the Age of Nero. Ithaca, NY, 1985

Syme, R. Roman Papers. 7 vols. Oxford, 1979—91 (1, 11: 1979; III: 1984; IV,
V: 1988; VI, VII: 1991)

Syme, R. The Augustan Aristocracy. Oxford, 1986

Thought 55.216 (1980). (Roman Empire anniversary issue)

L’Urbs. Espace urbain et histoire (ler siécle av. J.-C. —Ille siécle ap. J.-C.)
Collection de l’école frangaise de Rome 98). Rome, 1987

Versnel, H. Triumphus. Leiden, 1970

Villes et campagnes de Empire romain, Actes du colloque d’ Aix-en-Provence
1980. Aix, 1982
Wallace-Hadrill, A. ‘The emperor and his virtues’, Hist. 30 (1981)
298-323
Wells, C. M. The Roman Empire. London, 1984
Wickert, L. ‘Neue Forschungen zum rémischen Prinzipa’, ANRW nu, 1
(1974) 3-76 (with bibliography, 5—8)
Williams, G. W. Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry. Oxford, 1968
Williams, G. W. Change and Decline in Roman Poetry (Sather Classical
Lectures 45). Berkeley—Los Angeles, 1978
Williams, G. W. Figures and Thought in Roman Poetry. New Haven, 1980
Wilson, A. J. N. Exigration from Italy in the Republican Age of Rome.
Manchester—New York, 1966
Wirszubski, C. Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic
and Early Principate. Cambridge, 1950
Wirth, G. (ed.) Romanitas-Christianitas. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und
Literatur der rémischen Kaiserzeit (Festschr. Straub). Berlin, 1982
Wiseman, T. P. (ed.) Roman Political Life 90 B.c.—A.D. 69. Exeter, 1985
Wiseman, T. P. Roman Studies Literary and Historical. Liverpool, 1987
Yavetz, Z. Plebs and Princeps. Oxford, 1969; 2nd edn. New Brunswick,
NJ, 1988
Yuge, T. and Doi, M. (eds.) Forms of Control and Subordination in Antiquity.
Leiden, 1988

B. SOURCES

I. WORKS ON ANCIENT AUTHORS

. Ata dini _Augustit (only this volume published), edited by S. Riccobono

et al. Rome, 1945

. Albrecht, M. von ‘Properz als augusteischer Dichter’, WS 16 (1982)

220-36

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

1020

12.

13.
14.

16.

17.

18.
19.

20.
21.

22.

23.
24.
25.

26.

27.

28.
29.

30.
31.

B. SOURCES

. Ambrose, J. W. ‘Horace on foreign policy. Odes 4.4’, CJ 69 (1973/4)

26-33

. Anderson, R. D., Parsons, P. J. and Nisbet, R. G. M. ‘Elegiacs by Gallus

from Qasr Ibrim’, JRS 69 (1979) 125-55

. André J. La vie et Pawre d’ Asinius Pollion. Paris, 1949
. Anna, G. d’. ‘Cornelio Gallo, Virgilio e Properzio’, Athenaeum 59 (1981)

284-98

. Armstrong, D. ‘Horatius eques et scriba: Satires 1.6 and 2.7’, TAPA 116

(1986) 255-88

. Badian, E. ‘Nobiles amici: art and literature in an aristocratic society’, CP

80 (1985) 341-57

. Baldwin, B. Suetonius. Amsterdam, 1983
. Ball, R. J. ‘The politics of Tibullus: Augustus, Messalla, and Macer’, GB

10 (1981) 135-42

. Balsdon, J. P. V. D. ‘Dionysius on Romulus: a political pamphlet?’, JRS

61 (1971) 18-27

Beaujeu, J. ‘Le frére de Quirinus (4 propos de Virgile, Enéide 1 292 et de
Properce tv 1, 9)’, Mélanges Boyancé, 57-72. Rome, 1974

Bellemore, J. Nicolaus of Damascus, Life of Augustus. Bristol, 1984
Bilde, P. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome. His Life, his Works,
and their Importance. Sheffield, 1988

. Bowersock, G. W. ‘Historical problems in late Republican and Augustan

classicism’, Le classicisme a Rome (Entretiens Hardt 25) 57-78.
Vandoeuvres, 1978

Bowersock, G. W. ‘The addressee of the eighth eclogue. A response’,
HSCP 82 (1978) 201-2

Brink, C. O. Horace on Poetry 111. Cambridge, 1982

Broshi, M. ‘The credibility of Josephus’, JJS 33 (1982) 379-84

Brunt, P. A. ‘Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations’, JRS 64 (1974) 1-20
Bultmann, R. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. 2nd edn. London, 1972
Burck, E. ‘Die Rolle des Dichters und der Gesellschaft in der
augusteischen Dichtung’, Ae A 21 (1975) 12-35

Cairns, F. ‘Propertius on Augustus’ marriage law (11, 7)’, GB 8 (1979)
185—204

Cairns, F. ‘Propertius and the battle of Actium (4.6)’, in B 204, 129-68
Carter, J. M. (ed.) Suetonius, Diuus Augustus. Bristol, 1982

Charles, R. H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. 2
vols. Oxford, 1913

Charlesworth, J. H. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. London,
1983-5

Chilver, G. E. F. A Historical Commentary on Tacitus’ Histories, 1 and 2.
Oxford, 1979; 4 and s, edited by G. B. Townend. Oxford, 1985

Christ, K. ‘Tacitus und der Prinzipat’, Hist. 27 (1978) 449-87
Claassen, J. M. ‘Error and the imperial household; an angry god and the
exiled poet’s fate’, AC/ass 30 (1987) 31-47

Coffey, M. Roman Satire, 2nd edn. Bristol, 1989

Cohen, S. J. D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: his Vita and Development as a
Historian. Leiden, 1979

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

32.
33.
34

35-
. Dobesch, G. ‘Nikolaos von Damaskus und die Selbstbiographie des

37-

38.

39.
40.
41.

42.

43.
44.
45.
46.
47.

48.
49:

50.
51.
52.
53.
54-

53-
56.

57:

ANCIENT AUTHORS 1021

Curran, L. C. ‘Transformation and anti-Augustanism in Ovid’s
“Metamorphoses” ’, Arethusa 5.1 (1972) 71-91

Daly, L. J. ‘Livy’s veritas and the spolia opima. Politics and the heroics of
A. Cornelius Cossus’, AncW 4 (1981) 49-63

Deininger, J. ‘Livius und der Prinzipat’, in as4a, 265—72

Desch, W. ‘Horazens Beziehung zu Maecenas’, Eranos 79 (1981) 33-45

Augustus’, GB 7 (1978) 91-174

Du Quesnay, I. M. le M. ‘Virgil’s first eclogue’, Papers of the Liverpool
Latin Seminar 3 (1981) 29-182

Duckworth, H. T. F. A Commentary on the Fifty Third Book of Cassius Dio’s
Roman History (University of Toronto Studies, Philological Series 4).
Toronto, 1916

Duret, L. ‘Dans l’ombre des plus grands: I. Poétes et prosateurs mal
connus de l’€poque augustéenne’, A NRW II, 30. 3 (1983) 1447-560
Eisenhut, W. ‘Deus Caesar. Augustus in den Gedichten des Properz’, in
A 107A, 98-108

Elia, S. d’. ‘L’esilio di Ovidio e alcuni aspetti della storia Augustea’,
AFLN s$ (1955) 95-157

Fadinger, V. Die Begriindung des Prinzipats. Quellenkritische und
Staatsrechtliche Untersuchungen zu Cassius Dio und der Paralleliiberlieferung.
Berlin, 1969

Fairweather, J. ‘Ovid’s autobiographical poem, Tristia 4.10’, CQ 37
(1987) 181-96

Fantham, R. E. ‘Ovid, Germanicus, and the composition of the Fasti’,
Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 5 (1985) 243-81

Farron, S. ‘Aen. VI 826-35 (the vision of Julius Caesar and Pompey) as
an attack on Augustan propaganda’, AC/ass 23 (1980) 53-68

Farron, S. “The Aeneas—Dido episode as an attack on Aeneas’ mission
and Rome’, G & R 27 (1980) 34-47

Farron, S. ‘Aeneas’ revenge for Pallas as a criticism of Aeneas’, AC/ass 29
(1986) 69-93

Feldman, L. H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1937-1980. Berlin, 1984
Feldman, L. H. ‘Flavius Josephus revisited: the man, his writings, and
his significance’, ANRW II, 21.2 (1984) 763-862

Feldman, L. H. Josephus: a Supplementary Bibliography. New York, 1986
Fitton-Brown, A. D. ‘The unreality of Ovid’s Tomitan exile’, LCM 10
(1985) 18-22

Fornaro, P. Flavio Giuseppe, Tacito et ’'Impero. Turin, 1980

Fraenkel, E. Horace. Oxford, 1957

Gabba, E. ‘Progetti di riforme economiche e fiscali in uno storico dell’eta
dei Severi’, Studi Fanfani1, 39-68. Milan, 1962

Gabba, E. Appiani Bellorum Civilium Liber Quintus. Florence, 1970
Gabba, E. ‘La “Storia di Roma arcaica” di Dionigi d’Alicarnasso’,
ANRIW II, 30.1 (1982) 799-816

Gabba, E. ‘Political and cultural aspects of the classical revival in the
Augustan age’, C/Ant 1 (1982) 43-65

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

1022

58.

59-
Go.

G61.
62.

74:
75:

76.
77:

78.
79:

80.

83.

84.

B. SOURCES

Galinsky, G. K. ‘Some aspects of Ovid’s golden age’, GB 10 (1981)
193—20$

Gascou, J. Suétone historien. Rome, 1984

Getty, R. J. ‘Romulus, Roma, and Augustus in the sixth book of the
Aeneid’, CPh 45 (1950) 1-12

Ginsburg, J. Tradition and Theme in the Annals of Tacitus. Salem, NH, 1981
Goodyear, F.R. D. The Annals of Tacitus 1 (Annals 1, 1-34). Cambridge,
1972; 11 (1, 55-11). Cambridge, 1981

. Goold, G. P. ‘The cause of Ovid’s exile’, ICS 8 (1983) 94-107
. Gosling, A. ‘Tibullus 2.; and Augustan propaganda’, EMC 31 (1987)

333-9

. Gow, A. S. F. and Page, D. L. The Garland of Philip. Cambridge, 1968
. Grant, R. M. Exsebius as Church Historian. Oxford, 1980
. Green, P. ‘Carmen et error. I pédacts and airia in the matter of Ovid’s

exile’, C/Ant 1 (1982) 202-20

. Griffin, J. ‘Augustan poetry and the life of luxury’, JRS 66 (1976) 87-105
. Griffin, J. ‘Propertius and Antony’, JRS 67 (1977) 17-26
. Griffin, J. ‘The fourth Georgic, Virgil and Rome’, G e” RK 26 (1979)

61-80

. Griffin, M. Seneca. A Philosopher in Politics. Oxford, 1976
. Grimal, P. ‘Poésie et “propagande” au temps d’ Auguste’, CHM 8 (1964)

54-75

. Grimal, P. ‘Jupiter, Anchise et Vulcain: trois révélations sur le destin de

Rome’, in Diggle, J., Hall, J. B. and Jocelyn, H. D. (eds.) Studies in Latin
Literature ... in Honour of C.O. Brink (Camb. Phil. Soc. Suppl. Vol. 15),
1-14. Cambridge, 1989

Hahn, H. ‘Untersuchungen zur Autobiographie des Kaisers Augustus’.
Diss., Leipzig, 1957

Hahn, H. ‘Neue Untersuchungen zur Autobiographie des Kaisers
Augustus’, La Nouvelle Clio 10 (1958-Go) 137-48

Hanslik, R. ‘Die Augustusvita Suetons’, WS 67 (1954) 99—-144
Harrison, S. J. ‘Augustus, the poets, and the spolia opima*, CQ 39 (1989)
408-14

Harvey, F. D. ‘‘“‘Cognati Caesaris”: Ovid Amorest 2, 51-2’, WS 17 (1983)
89-90

Hellegouarc’h, J. ‘Les buts de l’ceuvre historique de Velleius Paterculus’,
Latomus 23 (1964) 669-84

Hemer, C. J. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting.
Sheffield, 1986

. Hemer, C. J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Tabingen,

1989

. Hermes, J. C. ‘Cornelius Gallus und Vergil. Das Problem der

Umarbeitung des vierten Georgica-Buches’. Diss., Miinster, 1977
Herter, H. ‘Das Concilium Deorum im 1. Metamorphosenbuch Ovids’,
in A 107A, 109~24

Heubner, H. P. Cornelius Tacitus: die Historien. 5 vols. Heidelberg,
1963-82

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

84a.
85.
86.
87.

88.

89.
89a.
go.

104.
105.

106.

107.
108,
109.
Ilo.
111.
112.

113.

114.

ANCIENT AUTHORS 1023

Highet, G. Juvenal the Satirist. Oxford, 1954

Holleman, A. W. J. ‘Ovid and politics’, Hist. 20 (1971) 458-66

Hollis, A. S. Ovid, Ars Amatoria, Book 1. Oxford, 1977

Horsfall, N. “Maecenas, Horace and the Georgics once more’, Macquarie
Ancient Hist. Association 3, 1981

Horsfall, N. Cornelius Nepos. A Selection, Including the Lives of Cato and
Abticus. Oxford, 1989

Horsfall, N. ‘Virgil and Marcellus’ education’, CQ 39 (1989) 266-7
Hubbard, M. Propertixus. London, 1974

Hurst, A. ‘Un critique grec dans la Rome d’Auguste: Denys
d’Halicarnasse’, 4 NRW Il, 30.1 (1982) 839-65

. Janssen, O. ‘De verbanning van Ovidius: waarheid of fictie?’, Coll.

Francisce. Neerlandica 5.3 (1981) no. 3, 77-105

. Jeffreys, E., Jeffreys, M. and Scott, R. The Chronicle of John Malalas. A

Translation. Melbourne, 1986

. Johnson, W. R. ‘The emotions of patriotism: Propertius, 4.6’, CSC_A 6

(1973) 151-80

. Jones, C. P. Plutarch and Rome. Oxford, 1971
. Kenney, E. J. and Clausen, W. (eds.) The Cambridge History of Classical

Literature, 11: Latin Literature. Cambridge, 1982

. Koester, H. Introduction to the New Testament. 2 vols. Berlin, 1982
. Koester, H. Ancient Christian Gospels: their History and Development.

London, 1990

. Koestermann, E. Cornelius Tacitus: Annalen. 4 vols. Heidelberg, 1963-8
. Korfmacher, W.C. ‘Vergil, spokesman for the Augustan reforms’, CJ 51

(195 5/6) 329-34

. Kragerrud, S. ‘Perusia and the Aeneid’, SymbOs/ 62 (1987) 77-87
. Kthnert, F. ‘Augusteische Dichtung und Dichtung der augusteischen

Zeit’, in A §4A, 118-29

. La Penna, A. Orazio e Pideologia del Principato. Turin, 1963
. Lambrecht, U. Herrscherbild und Prinzipatsidee in Suetons Kaiserbiographien.

Untersuchungen zur Caesar- und zur Augustusvita. Bonn, 1984

Lana, I. Velleio Patercolo o della propaganda, Turin, 1952

Lasserre, F. ‘Strabon devant l’empire romain’, ANRW II, 30.1 (1982)
867-96

Leach, E. W. ‘Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis and De Clementia’, Arethusa 22
(1989) 197-230

Lefévre, E. ‘Horaz und Maecenas’, ANRIW II, 31.3 (1981) 1987-2029
Lefévre, E. ‘Die /audes Galli in Vergils Georgica’, WS 20 (1986) 183-92
Lenel, O. Palingenesia Iuris Civilis. Leipzig, 1889; repr. 1960

Lenel, O. Das Edictum Perpetuum. 3rd edn. Leipzig, 1927; repr. 1974
Little, D. ‘Politics in Augustan poetry’, ANRW II, 30.1 (1982) 254-370
Liidemann, G. Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts: a
Commentary. Minneapolis, 1989

Lundstrém, S. Ovids Metamorphosen und die Politik des Kaisers (Stud. Lat.
Upsal. 12). Stockholm, 1980

Lyne, R. O. A. M. ‘Virgil and the politics of war’, CQ 33 (1983) 188-203

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

1024

115.
116.

117.

118.

119.

120.
121.
122.

123.
124.
125.
126.

127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.

135A.

136.

137.

138.
139.

140.
141.

142.

143.
144.

B. SOURCES

Mack, B. L. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Philadelphia,
1988

McKechnie, P. ‘Cassius Dio’s speech of Agrippa. A realistic alternative
to imperial government?’, G ¢ R 28 (1981) 150-5

McKeown, J. C. ‘Fabula proposito nulla tegenda meo: Ovid’s Fasti and
Augustan politics’, in B 204, 169-87

Malcovati, E. (ed.) Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti operum fragmenta. 5th edn.
Turin, 1969

Malcovati, E. ‘Augusto fonte di Svetonio’, WS Betheft 8 (Festschr. R.
Hanslik), 187-95. Vienna, 1977

Malherbe, A. J. Paul and the Popular Philosophers. Minneapolis, 1989
Manuwald, B. Cassius Dio und Augustus. Wiesbaden, 1979

Mehl, A. ‘Bemerkungen zu Dios und Tacitus’ Arbeitsweise und zur
Quellenlage im “Totengericht’”’ tiber Augustus’, Gyn. 88 (1981) 54-64
Mehl, H. Tacitus siber Kaiser Claudius. Munich, 1974

Mendelson, A. Philo’s Jewish Identity. Atlanta, 1988

Mensching, E. ‘Livius, Cossus und Augustus’, MH 24 (1967) 12-32
Merkelbach, R. ‘Augustus und Romulus (Erklarung von Horaz, Carm.1
12, 37-40)’, Philologus 104 (1960) 149-53

Mette, H. J. ‘Livius und Augustus’, Gywn. 68 (1961) 269-85

Millar, F. A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford, 1964

Moehring, H. R. ‘Joseph ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: the Jewish
prophet and Roman historian’, ANRW II, 21.2 (1984) 864-944
Nagle, B. R. The Poetics of Exile. Program and Polemic in the Tristia and
Epistulae ex Ponto of Ovid (Coll. Latomus 170). Brussels, 1980
Nikiprowetzky, V. La sroisiéme Sibylle. Paris, 1970

Nisbet, R. G. M. ‘Horace’s Epodes and History’, in B 204, 1-20

Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, M. Horace, Odes Book 1. Oxford, 1970;
Book 11. Oxford, 1978

Norberg, D. ‘La divinité d’ Auguste dans la poésie d’Horace’, Eranos 44
(1946) 389-403

Ogilvie, R. M. A Commentary on Livy 1-5. Oxford, 1965

Ous, B. Virgil: a Study in Civilized Poetry. Oxford, 1963

Paladini, M. L. ‘A proposito della tradizione poetica sulla battaglia di
Azio’, Latomus 17 (1958) 240-69, 462-75

Paratore, E. ‘Letteratura pagana nella Gallia romana’, Asti del colloquio sul
tema La Gallia romana (1971), 53-86. Rome, 1973

Pelling, C. B. R. Plutarch, Life of Antony. Cambridge, 1988

Petersman, G. ‘Cornelius Gallus und der Papyrus von Qasr Ibrim’,
ANRW I, 30 (1983) 1649-55

Phillips, C. R. ‘Rethinking Augustan poetry’, Latomus 42 (1983) 780-818
Poma, G. ‘Provvedimenti augustei su debiti e schiavi nell’interpret-
azione di Orosio’, RSA 16 (1986) 155-64

Péschl, V. Horag und die Politik (SB Heidelberg 1956.4) (= Kleine Schriften
1, 145-77. Heidelberg, 1979)

Péschl, V. ‘Virgil und Augustus’, A4NRW II, 31.2 (1981) 707-27
Putnam, M. C. J. “The Virgilian achievement’, Arethusa 5.1 (1972) 53-70

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

145.

146.
147.
148.
149.
150.

15.
152.

153.
154.

1§5.

157.
157A.
158.

159.

160,
161.

162.

ANCIENT AUTHORS 1025

Quinn, K. ‘The poet and his audience in the Augustan age’, 4 NRIW II,
30.1 (1982) 75-180

Rahn, H. ‘Zum Carmen saeculare des Horaz’, Gymn. 77 (1970) 467-79
Rajak, T. Josephus: the Historian and his Society. London, 1983

Reckford, K. J. ‘Horace and Maecenas’, TAPA 90 (1959) 195-208
Reinhold, M. ‘The unhero Aeneas’, C ¢> M 27 (1966) 195-207
Reinhold, M. From Republic to Principate: an Historical Commentary on
Cassius Dio Books 49-52 (36-29 B.c.) (American Philological Association
Monographs 34). Atlanta, 1988

Ritter, H. W. ‘Cluvius Rufus bei Josephus?’, RAM 115 (1972) 85-91
Roddaz, J. M. ‘De César 4 Auguste: l’image de la monarchie chez un
historien du siécle des Sévéres. Réflexions sur l’ceuvre de Dion Cassius, 4
propos d’ouvrages récents’, REA 85 (1983) 67-87

Rostagni, A. (ed.) Svetonio ‘de poetis’ e biografi minori. Turin, 1956

Rudd, W. J. N. ‘Ovid and the Augustus myth’, in sd. Lines of Enquiry, 1-
31. Cambridge, 1976

Rudd, W. J. N. ‘The idea of empire in the Aeneid’, Hermathena 134 (1983)
35-50

. Saller, R. P. ‘Anecdotes as evidence for Roman imperial history’, Ge» R

ser. 2, 27 (1980) 69-83

Sanders, E. P. and Davies, M. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. London, 1989
Santirocco, M. Unity and Design in Horace’s Odes. Chapel Hill, 1986
Scardigli, B. and Delbianco, P. Nicolao di Damasto, Vita di Augusto.
Florence, 1983

Schafer, P. ‘New Testament and hekhalot literature’, JJS 38 (1984) 19-35
Schalit, A. Namenworterbuch zu Flavius Josephus. Leiden, 1968

Schultze, C. ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassos and his audience’, in Moxon,
I. S., Smart, J. D. and Woodman, A. J. (eds.) Past Perspectives, 121-41.
Cambridge, 1986

Schwartz, D. R. ‘Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees’, JSJ 14 (1983)
1§7-71

. Scott-Kilvert, I. (transl.). Cassius Dio. The Roman History: the Reign of

Augustus. Harmondsworth, 1987

. Stahl, H. P. Propertius: ‘Love’ and‘War’. Individual and State under Augustus.

Berkeley—Los Angeles, 1985

. Stambaugh, J. E. and Balch, D. L. The New Testament in its Social

Environment. Philadelphia, 1986

. Starr, C. G. ‘Horace and Augustus’, A]Ph 90 (1969) 5864 (= Essays on

Ancient History, 241-7. Leiden, 1979)

. Steidle, W. ‘Beobachtungen zum Geschichtswerk des Cassius Dio’,

W]A 14 (1988) 203-24

. Stern, M. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem,

1974-84

. Stone, M. E. (ed.) Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha,

Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (Compendia
Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Sect. II). Assen, 1984

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

1026

170.

171.

172.
173.

174.

175.

176.
177.

178.

179.

180.

181.

182.

183.

184.
185.

186.
187.

188.
189,

190.
191.

IQIA.
192.

193.
194.
195.

B. SOURCES

Strack, H. L. and Stemberger, G. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash
(transl. by M. Bockmuehl). Edinburgh, 1991

Stroh, W. ‘Tréstende Musen: zur literarhistorischen Stellung und
Bedeutung von Ovids Exilgedichten’, ANRW II, 31.4 (1981) 2638-84
Strzelecki, W. C. Asei Capitonis Fragmenta. Leipzig, 1967

Sullivan, J. ‘The politics of elegy’, Arethusa 5.1 (1972) 17-34

Sumner, G. V. ‘The truth about Velleius Paterculus: Prolegomena’,
HSCP 74 (1970) 257-97

Swan, P. M. ‘Cassius Dio on Augustus: a poverty of annalistic sources?’,
Phoenix 41 (1987) 272-91

Syme, R. Tacitus. Oxford, 1958

Syme, R. ‘Livy and Augustus’, HSCP 64 (1959), 27-87 (=A 94, 1,
400-5 4)

Syme, R. Ten Studies in Tacitus. Oxford, 1970

Syme, R. History in Ovid. Oxford, 1978

Syme, R. ‘Janus and Parthia in Horace’, in Diggle, J., Hall, J. B. and
Jocelyn, H. D. (eds.) Studies in Latin Literature... in Honour of C. O. Brink.
(Camb. Phil. Soc. Suppl. Vol. 15), 113-24. Cambridge, 1989 (= 94, VI,
441-50)

Tarrant, R. J. ‘The addressee of Virgil’s eighth eclogue’, HSCP 82 (1978)
197-9

Thollard, P. ‘La notion de civilisation dans les livres 111 et rv de Strabon’,
Annales littéraires de la Faculté de Besancon (1987)

Thorley, J. ‘The nativity-census. What does Luke actually say?’. Ge R
26 (1979) 81-4

Toher, M. ‘The date of Nicolaus’ Bios Kaioapos’, GRBS 26 (1985)
199-206

Torelli, M. ‘Contributi al Supplemento del CIL 1x’, RAL 8, 24 (1969)
9-48

Traill, D. A. ‘Horace C. 1 3. A political ode?’, CJ 78 (1982/3) 131-7
Voit, L. ‘Horaz-Merkur-Augustus (zu Horaz, C. 1117, 1 10, 1 2)’, Gymn.
89 (1982) 479-96

Wacholder, B. Z. Nicolaus of Damascus. Berkeley, 1962

Wagenvoort, H. ‘The crime of fratricide (Horace Epode 7, 18)’, in
Wagenvoort, H. (ed.) Studies in Roman Literature, Culture and Religion,
169-83. Leiden, 1956

Wallace-Hadrill, A. Swetonius: the Scholar and his Caesars. London, 1983
Wallace-Hadrill, A. “Time for Augustus: Ovid, Augustus, and the Fas¢?’,
in Whitby, L. M., Hardie, P. R. and Whitby, M. (eds.) Homo Viator
(Classical Essays for John Bramble), 221-30. Bristol—Oak Park, IL, 1987
Walsh, P. G. Livy (New Surveys in the Classics 8). Oxford, 1974
Watson, L. ‘Epode 9, or The Art of Falsehood’, in Whitby, L. M., Hardie,
P. and Whitby, M. (eds.) Homo Viator (Classical Essays for John
Bramble), 119-30. Bristol-Oak Park, IL, 1987

Wellesley, K. Cornelius Tacitus: the Histories, Book 111. Sydney, 1972
Wickert, L. ‘Horaz und Augustus’, WJA 2 (1947) 158-72
Wiedemann, T. ‘The political background to Ovid’s Tristia I, CQ 25
(1975) 264-71

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

197.
IQ7A.
198.

199.

200.
201.
202,
203.
204.

205.

206.
207.
208.
209.

210.
21.

213.
214.
215.
216.

217.

218.

EPIGRAPHY 1027

. Williams, G. ‘Horace Odes 1 12 and the succession to Augustus’,

Hermathena 118 (1974) 147-55

Williams, G. Technique and Ideas in the Aeneid. New Haven—London, 1983
Wiseman, T. P. Cinna the Poet and other Roman Essays. Leicester, 1974
Wiseman, T. P. ‘Calpurnius Siculus and the Claudian civil war’, JRS 72
(1982) 57-67 (=A 109, 86-96)

Wiseman, T. P. ‘Cybele, Virgil and Augustus’, in B 204, 117-28
Wistrand, E. Horace’s Ninth Epode and its Historical Background. Goteborg,
1958

Witke, C. Horace’s Roman Odes. A Critical Examination (Mnemosyne Suppl.
77). Leiden, 1983

Woodman, A. J. Velleius Paterculus: the Tiberian Narrative. Cambridge,
1977

Woodman, A. J. Velleius Paterculus: the Caesarian and Augustan Narrative.
Cambridge, 1983

Woodman, A. J. and West, D. (eds.) Poetry and Politics in the Age of
Augustus. Cambridge, 1984

Zecchini, G. I/carmen de bello actiaco. Storiografia e lotta politica in eta augustea
(Historia Einzelschr. 51). Stuttgart, 1987

2. EPIGRAPHY

Arangio-Ruiz, V. ‘Testi e Documenti VI, L’iscrizione leidense di
Augusto’, BIDR 64 (1961) 323-42

Atkinson, K. M. T. ‘Restitutio in integrum and iussum Augusti Caesaris in an
inscription at Leyden’, RIDA 7 (1960) 228~—72

Badian, E. ‘Notes on some documents from Aphrodisias concerning
Octavian’, GRBS 25 (1984) 157-70

Balland, A. ‘Q. Veranius cos. ord. 49 et sa famille’, Fouilles de Xanthos vu
(Inst. francais d études anatoliennes) 79-102. Paris, 1981

Bivona, L. Iscrizioni latine lapidarie del Museo di Palermo. Palermo, 1970
Bogaers, J. E. ‘King Cogidubnus: another reading of RIB 91’, Britannia
10 (1979) 243-54

. Bove, L. Documenti processuali dalle tabulae Pompeianae di Murecine. Naples,

1979

Bove, L. Documenti di operazioni finanziarie dall archivio dei Sulpici. Naples,
1984

Brunt, P. A. ‘C. Fabricius Tuscus and an Augustan dilectus’, ZPE 13
(1974) 161-85

Brunt, P. A. and Moore, J. M. (eds.) Res Gestae divi Augusti: the
Achievements of the Divine Augustus. Oxford, 1967

Carter, J. M. ‘A new fragment of Octavian’s inscription at Nicopolis’,
ZPE 24 (1977) 227-30

Cavallaro, M. A. ‘Economia e religio nei ludi secolari augustei. Per una
nuova interpretazione di CIL vi 32324; 32323, 59’, RAM 122 (1979)
49-87

Coli, U. ‘Nuove osservazioni e congetture sulla Tabula Hebana’, [ura 3
(1952) 90-131

1028

219

220.
221.
222.
223.
224.
225.
226.

227.

228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.
241.

242.
243.

B. SOURCES

. Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. The Roman Inscriptions of Britain. 1:
Inscriptions on Stone. Oxford, 1965. 11: Instrumentum Domesticum. Fasc. 1.
Gloucester, 1990

Crook, J. A. ‘An Augustan inscription in the Rijksmuseum at Leyden,
SEG xvutt 555’, PCPAS 8 (1962) 23-9

D’ Agata, A. R. M. Decreta Pisana, CIL x1, 1420-21. Pisa, 1980

D’Ors, A. Epigrafia juridica de la Espatia romana. Madrid, 1953
Degrassi, A. ‘Frammenti di elogi e di una dedica a Romolo del Foro
d’Augusto’, BCAR 67 (1939) 5-12

Degrassi, A. (ed.) Inscriptiones Italiae x111. Rome, 1947 and 1963
Degrassi, A. ‘II sepolcro dei Salvii a Ferento e le sue iscrizioni’, RP-AA
34 (1961-2) 59-77 (= Scritti vari di antichita Wi, 155-72. Venice—Trieste,
1967)

Degrassi, A. ‘Epigraphica II’, Memorie dell’ Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei,
Classe de Sc. mor., stor. e filol., 8th ser., 11 (1965) 233-47 (= Scritti vari di
antichita 111, 35-87. Venice—Trieste, 1967)

Ehrenberg, V. and Jones, A. H. M. Documents Illustrating the Reigns of
Augustus and Tiberius. 2nd edn. Oxford, 1955; repr. with Addenda, 1976
and 1979

Engelmann, H. and Knibbe, D. ‘Das Monumentum Ephesenum. Ein
Vorbericht’, Epigraphica Anatolica 8 (1986) 19-32

Engelmann, H. and Knibbe, D. ‘Das Zollgesetz der Provinz Asia’,
Epigraphica Anatolica 14 (1989) 1-206

Frey, J. B. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 2nd edn with
prolegomenon by B. Lifshitz, New York, 1975; vol. 11, Rome, 1952
Frisch, P. “Zu den Elogien des Augustusforums’, ZPE 39 (1980) 91-8
Frova, A. ‘L’iscrizione di Pontio Pilato a Cesarea’, RIL 95 (1961) 419-34
Gagé, J. (ed.) Res Gestae Divi Augusti. 3rd edn. Paris, 1977

Gonzalez, J. ‘Tabula Siarensis, Fortunales Siarenses et Municipia Civium
Romanorum’, ZPE 5; (1984) 55—100

Gonzalez, J. ‘The Lex Irnitana: a new copy of the Flavian municipal law’,
JRS 76 (1986) 147-243

Gordon, A. E. ‘Notes on the Res Gestae of Augustus’, CSC.A 1 (1968)
125-38

Griffin, M. T. ‘The Lyons tablet and Tacitean hindsight’, CQ 32 (1982)
404-18

Guarducci, M. ‘Ancora una volta sul frammento dell’ Edictum de pretiis di
Diocleziano trovato a Pettorano sul Gizio’, Athenaeum 63 (1985) 491-4
Habicht, C. ‘New evidence on the province of Asia’, JRS65 (1975) 64-91
Hall, A. ‘New light’ on the capture of Isaura Vetus’, A&ten des VI
internationalen Kongresses fiir griechische und lateinische Epigraphik (Vestigia
17), 568-71. Munich, 1972

Hartmann, E. ‘Die Gallus-Inschrift auf dem Vatikanischen Obelisken’,
Gyn. 72 (1965) 1-8

Henzen, W. Acta fratrum Arvalium quae supersunt. Berlin, 1874
Hoffmann, W. ‘Der Widerstreit von Tradition und Gegenwart im
Tatenbericht des Augustus’, Gymn. 76 (1969) 17-33

244.
245.
246.
247.
248.
249.

250.

252.
253.

254.

255.

256.

257.

259.

260.

261.
262.
263.
264.

265.

EPIGRAPHY 1029

Kroemer, D. ‘Textkritisches zu Augustus und Tiberius (Res gestae c.34—
Tac. Ann. 6,30,3)’, ZPE 28 (1978) 127-44

Kunkel, W. ‘Uber die Leidener Augustus-Inschrift aus Kyme’, Studi Betti
i, 91-620. Milan, 1962

Laff, U. ‘Le iscrizioni relative all’introduzione nel 9 a.C. del nuovo
calendario della Provincia d’ Asia’, SCO 16 (1967) 5-98

Lauffer, S. ‘Annos undeuiginti natus’, Historia Einzelschr. 40 (Studies H.
Bengtson), 174-7. Wiesbaden, 1983

Lesuisse, L. ‘La clause transitoire de la lex de imperio Vespasiani’, RBPA
40 (1962) 51-75

Levi, M. A. ‘La composizione delle Res gestae diui Augusti’, RFIC
(1947) 189-210

Lideritz, G. (ed.) Corpus judischer Zeugnisse aus der Cyrenaica. Wiesbaden,

1983

. McCrum, M. and Woodhead, A. G. Select Documents of the Principates of the

Flavian Emperors a.p. 68-96. Cambridge, 1961

Manni Piraino, M. T. Iscrizioni greche lapidarie del museo di Palermo.
Palermo, 1973

Millar, F. ‘Imperial ideology in the Tabula Siarensis’, in Gonzalez, J. and
Arce, J. (eds.) Estudios sobre la Tabula Siarensis, 11-19. Madrid, 1988
Michelsen, E. ‘The palaeographical interference as reflected in the Latin
inscriptions of Clusium and Perusia’, in Bruun, P. ef a/. Studies in the
Romanisation of Etruria, 247-67. Rome, 1975

Mitchell, S. ‘Requisitioned transport in the Roman empire: a new
inscription from Pisidia’, JRS 66 (1976) 106-31

Moretti, L. ‘Frammenti vecchi e nuovi del Commentario dei Ludi
secolari’, RPAA 55-6 (1982-4) 361-79

Mourgues, J.-L. “The so-called letter of Domitian at the end of the Lex
Irnitana’, JRS 77 (1987) 78-87

. Oliver, J. H. “The main problem of the Augustan inscription from

Cyme’, GRBS 4 (1963) 115-22

Oliver, J. H. ‘Octavian’s inscription at Nicopolis’, AJP 90 (1969)
178-82

Paci, G. ‘Possibili tracce di statuti municipali in alcune iscrizioni d'Italia
concernenti un particulare tipo di munificenza privata’, in Epigrafia
Juridica Romana, 125-33. Pamplona, 1989

Pearse, J. L. D. ‘Three a/ba of the Collegium Fabrum Tignariorum of Rome’,
BCAR 85 (1976-7) 163-76

Pekary, T. ‘Statuae meae... argenteae steterunt in urbe xxx circiter, quas
ipse sustuli. Interpretationen zu Res gestae diui Augusti 24’, in A 55A,
96-108

Pighi, J. B. De /udis saecularibus ... libri sex. 2nd edn. Amsterdam, 1965
Pleket, H. W. The Greek Inscriptions in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden at
Leyden. Leiden, 1958

Ramage, E. S. The Nature and Purpose of Augustus’ ‘Res Gestae’. (Historia
Eingelschrift 54). Wiesbaden, 1987

1030

266.

267.

268.

269.

270.

271.

272.

273.
274.

275-

276.

277.

278.
279.
280.

281.

282.

283.
284.
285.
286.
287.
288.

289.
290.

291.
292.

B. SOURCES

Ramage, E. S. ‘The date of Augustus’ Res Gestae’, Chiron 18 (1988)
71-82

Rehn, A. in Kawerau, G. and Rehn, A. (eds.) Das Delphinion in Milet,
Milet 1. 3. Berlin, 1914

Rengen, W. van ‘L’épigraphie grecque et latine de Syrie. Bilan d’un quart
de siécle de recherches épigraphiques’, ANRI II, 8 (1978) 31-53
Rey-Coquais, J.-P. ‘Inscriptions grecques d’Apamée’, 4.AS 23 (1973)
39-84

Reynolds, J. Aphrodisias and Rome (JRS Monographs 1). London, 1982
Richardson, J. S. ‘The Tabula Contrebiensis. Roman law in Spain in the
early first century B.c.’, J/RS 73 (1983) 33-41

Ritter, H. W. ‘Uberlegungen zur Inschrift des Augustusbogens auf dem
Forum Romanum’, MD AI(R) 85 (1978) 371-84

Robert, J. and L. Bulletin épigraphique in REG (193 4-84)

Robert, L. Etudes épigraphiques et philologiques. Paris, 1938

Robert, L. Hellenica, recueil d épigraphie, de numismatique et d antiquités
grecques, 1—x111. Limoges—Paris, 1940-65

Robert, L. ‘Discussion of a place-name in the Leiden inscription’, REG
86 (1973) 135-6

Roueché, C. ‘Acclamations in the later Roman Empire: new evidence
from Aphrodisias’, JRS 74 (1984) 181-99

Salvaterra, C. ‘Forum Julium nell’iscrizione di C. Cornelius Gallus
sull’obelisco Vaticano’, Aegyptus 67 (1987) 171-81

Schachermeyr, F. and Merkelbach, R. Inschriften griechischer Stadten aus
Kleinasien. Bonn, 1972-

Seston, W. ‘Le clipeus virtutis d’Arles et la composition des Res gestae
divi Augusti’, CR-Al 1954, 286-97

Seyfarth, W. ‘Potitus rerum omnium. Ein Beitrag zur Deutung der
RGDA, Kapitel 34’, Philologus 101 (1957) 305-23

Sherk, R. K. Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and
Epistulae to the Age of Augustus. Baltimore, 1969

Sherk, R. K. Rome and the Greek East (Translated Documents of Greece
and Rome, 4). Cambridge, 1984

Smallwood,.E. M. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius
and Nero. Cambridge, 1967; Bristol, 1984

Solin, H. ‘Ricerche epigrafiche in Ciociaria’, Epigraphica 50 (1988)
87-104

Sotgiu, G. Iscrizioni latine della Sardegna t. Padua, 1961

Stiehl, R. Die Datierung der Kapitolinischen Fasten. Tabingen, 1957
Syme, R. ‘Sejanus on the Aventine’, Hermes 84 (1956) 257-66 (=A 94,1
305-14)

Taylor, L. R. ‘The date of the Capitoline Fasti’, CP4 41 (1946) 1-11
Taylor, L. R. ‘New indications of Augustan editing in the Capitoline
Fasti’, CPA 46 (1951) 73-80

Torelli, M. Evlogia Tarquiniensia. Florence, 1975

Vassileiou, H. ‘Drusus imperator appellatus in Germania (Erganzung
des Drususelogiums auf dem Forum Augusti)’, ZPE 51 (1983) 213-14

293.
294.
295.

296.
297.

298.
299.

300.
301.

302.
303.
304.
305.
306.
307.
308.
309.

310.

311.
312.
313.
314.

315.

NUMISMATICS 1031

Visscher, F. de Les édits ? Auguste découverts a Cyréne. Louvain, 1940; repr.
Osnabriick, 1965

Volkmann, H. ‘Bemerkungen zu den Res gestae diui Augusti’, Hist. 3
(1954) 81-6

Volkmann, H. ‘Zur Gallus-Inschrift auf dem Vatikanischen Obelisken’,
Gymn. 72 (1965) 325-30 (= id. Endoxos Duleia (Berlin, 1975) 191-3)
Weber, E. ‘Zur Inschrift des Pontius Pilatus’, BJ 171 (1971) 194-200
Wigtil, D. N. ‘The ideology of the Greek Res Gestae’, ANRW II, 30.1
(1982) 624-38

Wigtil, D. N. ‘The translator of the Greek Res Gestae of Augustus’,
AJPh 103 (1982) 189-94

Wuilleumier, P. Inscriptions latines des Trois Gaules. Gallia. Suppl. 17 (1984)
Yavetz, Z. ‘The Res Gestae and Augustus’ image’, in c 176, 1-36
Zecchini, G. ‘La Tabula Siarensis e la ‘‘Dissimulatio” di Tiberio’, ZPE
66 (1986) 23-9

3. NUMISMATICS

Alfoldi, M. R. Die Fundmiinzen der Romischen Zeit in Deutschland 1.3/1.
Berlin, 1970

Allen, D. ‘The Belgic dynasties of Britain and their coins’, Archaeologia 90
(1944) 1-46

Allen, D. ‘A study of the Dobunnic coinage’, in Clifford, E. M. (ed.)
Bagendon: a Belgic Oppidum, 75-149. Cambridge, 1961

Allen, D. ‘The origins of coinage in Britain: a reappraisal’, in Frere, S. S.
(ed.) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain, 97-308. London, 1958
Aulock, H. von Miinzen und Stadte Lykaoniens (MD AI1(I) 16). Tabingen,
1976

Aulock, H. von Mingen und Stadte Pisidiens 1 and 2(MDAI(I) 19 and 22).
Tubingen, 1977, 1979

Aulock, H. von. Mingen und Stadte Phrygiens 1(MDAI(I) 25). Tabingen,
1980

Bay, A. ‘The letters SC on Augustan aes coinage’, JRS 62 (1972) 111-22
Belloni, G. G. ‘Monete romane (repubblica e impero) in quanto opera
d’artigianato e arte. Osservazioni e impostazione di problemi’, ANRIV
IT, 12. 3 (1985) 89-115

Burnett, A. ‘Sicily’, in B 312, 165-81

Burnett, A., Amandry, M. and Ripollés, P. P. Roman Provincial Coinage. 1:
From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 B.C.—A.D. 69).
London-Paris, 1992

Burnett, A. M. ‘The authority to coin in the late Republic and early
Empire’, NC 17 (1977) 37-63

Buttrey, T. V. ‘Studies in the coinage of Marc Antony’. Diss., Princeton,
1953

Buttrey, T. V. “Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica, first century B.c. to first
century a.p.’, in Brooke, C. N. L. (ed.) Studies in Numismatic Method
presented to Philip Grierson 23-46. Cambridge, 1983

1032

Z15A.

316.
316A.
317.
318.
319.
320.
321.

322.

323.

324.

325.

326.

327.

328.
329.
330.
331.
332.
333-

334.

335;

336.

B. SOURCES

Buttrey, T. V. ‘Crete and Cyrene’, in A. M. Burnett and M. H. Crawford
(eds.), The Coinage of the Roman World in the Late Republic (BAR
International Series 326), 165-74. Oxford, 1987

Carson, J. Principal Coins of the Romans: 1. The Principate 31 B.C.-A.D. 296.
London, 1980

Chapman, A. E. ‘Some first century B.c. bronze coins of Cnossos’, NC 8
(1968) 13-26

Collis, J. R. ‘Functional and theoretical interpretations of British
coinage’, World Archaeology 3 (1971) 71-84

Crawford, M. H. Roman Republican Coin Hoards. London, 1969
Crawford, M. H. Roman Republican Coinage 1-11. Cambridge, 1974
Crawford, M. H. Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic: Italy and the
Mediterranean Economy. London, 1985

Ercolani Cocchi, E. Metodi di ricerca numismatica e problemi della prima
monetazione imperiale, 1: Augusto (Studi di storia antica 2). Bologna, 1978
Grant, M. From Imperium to Auctoritas: a Historical Study of Aes Coinage in
the Roman Empire 49 8.C.-a.D. 14. Cambridge, 1946; repr. 1969

Grant, M. ‘A step toward world-coinage, 19 B.c.’, in P. R. Coleman-
Norton (ed.) Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honour of A.C.
Johnson, 88—112. Princeton, 1951

Grant, M. The Six Main Aes Coinages of Augustus. Controversial Studies.
Edinburgh, 1953

Howgego, C. J. Greek Imperial Countermarks. Studies in the Provincial
Coinage of the Roman Empire. Roy. Num. Soc. Special Publ. 17. London,
1985

Imhoof-Blumer, F. Kéeinasiatische Miinzen. Sonderschr. des Ost. Arch.
Inst. in Wien 1, 111. Vienna, 1901-2

Jucker, A. ‘Apollo Palatinus und Apollo Actius auf augusteischen
Miinzen’, MH 39 (1982) 82-100

Kadman, L. The Coins of the Jewish War of 66-73 c.£. Tel Aviv, 1960
Kadman, L. The Coins of Akko Ptolemais. Jerusalem, 1961

Kent, J. P. C. Roman Coins. London, 1978

Kindler, A. The Coinage of Bostra. Warminster, 1983

Kraay, C. M. The Aes Coinage of Galba. New York, 1956

Kraft, K. ‘Zur Datierung der romischen Minzmeisterpragung unter
Augustus’, MZ 46/47 (195 1-2) 28-35 (= Gesammelte Aufsatze zur antiken
Geldgeschichte und Numismatik 1 (Kleine Schriften 11), 42-56. Darmstadt,
1978)

Kraft, K. ‘S(enatus) C(onsulto)’, JNG 12 (1962) 7-49. (Repr. in
Schmitthenner, W. (ed.) Augustus, 336-403. Darmstadt, 1969)
(= Gesammelte Aufsdtze i! (Kleine Schriften 111), 143-210. Darmstadt, 1985)
Kraft, K. Zur Minzpragung des Augustus (SB Frankfurt 7, no. 5),
Wiesbaden, 1969 (= Gesammelte Aufsdtze 1 (Kleine Schriften 11), 291-337-
Darmstadt, 1978)

Kunisz, A. Recherches sur le monnayage et la circulation monétaire sous le régne
@ Auguste. Warsaw, 1976

337-

338.
339-
340.
341.
342.
343-
344.
345-
346.
347-
347A.
348.
349.
350.
351.
352.
353-

334.

395:
356.

357.
358.

359-

360.
361.

NUMISMATICS 1033

Levick, B. M. ‘Mercy and moderation on the coinage of Tiberius’, in
Levick, B. M. (ed.) The Ancient Historian and his Materials, 123-38.
Farnborough, 1976

Levick, B. M. ‘Propaganda and the imperial coinage’, Antichthon 16
(1982) 104-16

Liegle, J. ‘Die Miinzpragung Oktavians nach dem Sieg von Actium und
die augusteische Kunst’, ]D_AI 56 (1941) 91-119

Masada I: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965. Final Reports. The Coins
of Masada, edited by Y. Meshorer. Jerusalem, 1989

Mattingly, H. and Carson, R. A. G. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British
Museum. 6 vols. London, 1932-62

Mattingly, H., Sydenham, E. A., Webb, P. H. ef a/. The Roman Imperial
Coinage 1-v; vil; 1X. London, 1923-66

Meshorer, Y. Nabataean Coins. Quedem 3. Jerusalem, 1975

Meshorer, Y. Ancient Jewish Coinage. 2 vols. New York, 1982

Mirnik, I. Coin Hoards in Yugoslavia (BAR International Series 95).
Oxford, 1981

Newby, J. D. A Numismatic Commentary on the Res Gestae of Augustus.
London, 1938

Panvini Rosati, F. ‘Le emissioni in oro e argento dei “‘tresviri monetales”’
di Augusto’, ArchClass 3 (1951) 66-85

Robinson, E. S. G. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Cyrenaica (in the British
Museum). London, 1927

Rodewald, C. Money in the Age of Tiberius. Manchester, 1976

Scheer, R. ‘Vindex libertatis’, Gymn. 78 (i971) 182-8

Seyrig. H. ‘Le monnayage de Ptolemais en Phénice’, RN ns. 4 (1962)
25-50

Shear, J. P. ‘Athenian Imperial coinage’, Hesperia 5 (1936) 285-332
Smith, H. R. W. ‘Problems historical and numismatic in the reign of
Augustus’, University of California Publications in Classical Archaeology i, 4.
Berkeley, 1951

Spijkerman, A. The Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia. Jerusalem,
1978

Sutherland, C. H. V. Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy. London, 1951; repr.
1971

Sutherland, C. H. V. The Cistophori of Augustus. London, 1970
Sutherland, C. H. V. The Emperor and the Coinage. Julio-Claudian Studies.
London, 1976

Sutherland, C. H. V. The Roman Imperial Coinage. 1. Rev. edn. London,
1984

Sutherland, C. H. V. Roman History and Coinage 44 B.C.—A.D. 69. Oxford,
1987

Sutherland, C. H. V. and Kraay, C. M. Catalogue of the Coins of the Roman
Empire in the Ashmolean Museum 1. Oxford, 1975

Sydenham, E. A. The Coinage of the Roman Republic. London, 1952
Walker, D. R. The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage From Augustus to

1034

362.
363.

364.

365.
366.

367.
368.
369.
37°.
371.
372.

373-
374.

376.

377-

378.

379-

380.
381.

B. SOURCES

Domitian (British Archaeological Reports, Supplementary Series $5).
Oxford, 1976

Wallace-Hadrill, A. ‘Image and authority in the coinage of Augustus’,
JRS 76 (1986) 66-87

Wruck, W. Die syrische Provinzialpragung von Augustus bis Traian. Stuttgart,
1931

Zehnacker, H. Tensions et contradictions dans Pempire au 1° siécle: les
témoignages numismatiques (Entretiens Hardt 33) 321-57. Vandoeuvres—
Geneva, 1987

4. PAPYROLOGY

Badian, E. ‘Notes on the Laudatio of Agrippa’, CJ 76 (1980/1) 97-109

Balconi, C. ‘Documenti greci e latini d’Egitto di eta augustea’, Aegyptus
56 (1976) 208-86

Bowman, A. K. ‘Papyri and Roman imperial history, 1960-1975’, JRS 66
(1976) 153-74

Fink, R. O., Hoey, A. S. and Snyder, W. F. ‘The Feriale Duranum’, YCS 7
(1940) 1-222

Gray, E. W. ‘The imperium of M. Agrippa, a note on P. Colon. inv. No.
4701’, ZPE 6 (1970) 227-38

Gronewald, M. ‘Ein neues Fragment der Laudatio Funebris des
Augustus auf Agrippa’, ZPE 52 (1983) 61-2

Haslam, M. W. ‘Augustus’ funeral oration for Agrippa’, CJ 75 (1979/80)
193-9

Koenen, L. ‘Die laudatio funebris des Augustus fiir Agrippa auf einem
neuen Papyrus (P. Colon. inv. Nr. 4701)’, ZPE 5 (1970) 217-83 (see also
6 (1970) 239-43)

Lewis, N. ‘P. Oxy. 2820. Whose preparations?’, GRBS 16 (1975) 295-303
Lewis, N. ‘P. Oxy. 2820: Gallus ... Vous dites Gallus?’ CE 123/124

(1987) 219-22

. Lewis, N., Yadin, Y. and Greenfield, J. C. (eds.) The Documents from the

Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri (including Aramaic and
Nabatean Signatures and Subscriptions). Jerusalem, 1989

Luppe, W. ‘P. Oxy. 2820. Ein Bericht iiber die politische Tatigkeit des
Cornelius Gallus?’, APF 26 (1978) 33-8

Masada I: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965. Final Reports. The
Aramaic and Hebrew Ostraca and Jar Inscriptions, edited by Y. Yadin and J.
Naveh. Jerusalem, 1989

Masada II: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965. Final Reports. The
Latin and Greek Documents, edited by H. M. Cotton and J. Geiger.
Jerusalem, 1989

Mitteis, L. and Wilcken, U. Grundziige und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde.
4 vols. Leipzig—Berlin, 1911-12

Montevecchi, O. La Papirologia. 2nd edn. Milan, 1988

Musurillo, H. The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs: Acta Alexandrinorum.
Oxford, 1954

382.
383.

384.
385.
386.

387.
388.

PW AS

10.
Il.

12.

12A.
13.

14.
Ij.
16.

17.
18.

TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD, AUGUSTUS 1035

Musurillo, H. (ed.) Acta Alexandrinorum. Leipzig, 1961

Reinhold, M. ‘Marcus Agrippa’s son-in-law, P. Quinctilius Varus’, CP
67 (1972) 119-21

Sherk, R. K. ‘The last two lines of the Laudatio Funebris for Agrippa’,
ZPE 41 (1981) 67-9

Skeat, T. C. ‘The Augustan era in Egypt. A note on P. Oxy. xii 1453’,
ZPE $3 (1983) 241-4

Tcherikover, V. A., Fuks, A., Stern, M. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. 3
vols. Cambridge, MA, 1957-64

Treu, M. ‘Nach Kleopatras Tod (P. Oxy. 2820)’, Chiron 3 (1973) 221-33
Wilcken, U. Griechische Ostraka aus Agypten und Nubien. 2 vols. Leipzig—
Berlin, 1899

C. POLITICAL HISTORY

1. THE TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD AND THE REIGN OF AUGUSTUS

. Adcock, F. E. ‘The interpretation of Res gestae diui Augusti 34,1’, CQ 45

(1951) 130-5 (and in German in c 208, 230-40)
Adcock, F. E. ‘A note on Res gestae diui Augusti 34, 3’, JRS 42 (1952)
10-12

. Aigner, H. Die Soldaten als Machtfaktor in der ausgehenden Republik.

Innsbruck, 1974

Alféldy, G. ‘Die Ablehnung der Diktatur durch Augustus’, Gyan. 79
(1972) 1-12

André, J. M. Mécéne. Essai de biographie spirituelle. Paris, 1967

André, J. M. Le siécle d Auguste. Paris, 1974

André, J. M. ‘Mécéne écrivain’, ANRI II, 30.3 (1983) 1765-87
Anello, P. ‘La fine del secondo triumvirato’, BtAdas X dpw (Miscellanea in
onore di Eugenio Manni) t 103-14. Rome, 1980

Arangio-Ruiz, V. ‘La legislazione’, in c 12A, 101-46

Astin, A. E. ‘Augustus and censoria potestas’, Latomus 22 (1963) 226-35
Atkinson, K. M. T. ‘The governors of the province Asia in the reign of
Augustus’, Hist. 7 (1958) 300-30

Atkinson, K. M. T. ‘Constitutional and legal aspects of the trials of
Marcus Primus and Varro Murena’, Hist. 9 (1960) 440-73

Augustus: Studi in occasione del bimillenario augusteo, Rome, 1938

Badian, E. ‘The quaestorship of Tiberius Nero’, Mnemosyne 27 (1974)
160-72

Badian, E. ‘“‘Crisis theories” and the beginning of the principate’, in A
107A, 18-41

Badot, P. ‘A propos de la conspiration de M. Egnatius Rufus’, Latomus
32 (1973) 606-15

Barnes, T. D. “The date of Herod’s death’, JTS 19 (1968) 204-9
Barnes, T. D. ‘Julia’s child’, Phoenix 35 (1981) 362-3

Bastomsky, S. J. ‘Proculeius and Augustus. A note on a friendship
turned sour’, Latomus 36 (1977) 129-31

1036

19.
20.

21.
22.
23.
24.

25.

26.

27.

27A.
28.
29.
30.
31.

32.

33-

34.
35.

36.

37-
. Bowersock, G. W. ‘Augustus on Aegina’, CQ 14 (1964) 120-1

39-
40.

41.

42.

43.

Cc. POLITICAL HISTORY

Bauman, R. A. ‘Tiberius and Murena’, Hist. 15 (1966) 420-33
Bauman, R. A. “Tribunician sacrosanctity in 44, 36 and 35 B.c.’, RAM 124
(1981) 166-83

Benario, H. W. ‘Augustus Princeps’, ANRW II, 2 (1975) 75-85
Bengtson, J. Zum Partherfeldzug des Antonius, SBAW 1 (1974) 1-48
Bengtson, H. Kaiser Augustus. Munich, 1981

Béranger, J. ‘A propos d’un imperium infinitum: histoire et stylistique’,
Meél. Marouzeau, 1948, 19-27 (=C 27A, 98-106)

Béranger, J. ‘La démocratie sous l’empire romain: les opérations
électorales de la Tabula Hebana et la “‘destinatio” ’, MH 14 (1957) 216-40
(=C 27A, 209-42)

Béranger, J. ‘L’accession d’Auguste et l’idéologie du “priuatus”’,
Palaeologia 7 (1958) 1-11 (=C 27A, 243-58)

Béranger, J. ‘Diagnostic du principat: l’empereur romain, chef de parti’,
REL 37 (1959) 151-70 (=C 274, 259-80)

Béranger, J. Principatus: Etudes de notions et d’histoire politiques dans
LP Antiquité gréco-romaine. Geneva, 1973

Béranger, J. ‘Imperium, expression et conception du pouvoir impérial’,
REL $5 (1977) 325-54

Bicknell, P. J. ‘Caesar, Antony, Cleopatra, and Cyprus’, Latomus 36
(1977) 325-42

Birch, R. A. ‘The correspondence of Augustus. Some notes on
Suetonius, Tiberius 21.4-7’, CQ 31 (1981) 155-61

Birch, R. A. ‘The settlement of 26 June A.D. 4 and its aftermath’, CQ 31
(1981) 443-56

Bleicken, J. Zwischen Republik und Prinzipat: yum Charakter des Zweiten
Triumvirats (Abh. d. Akad. Wiss. Gott. Phil. — Hist. klasse, 3 Folge, nr.
185). Gottingen, 1990

Boatwright, M. T. “The Pomerial extension of Augustus’, Hist. 35 (1986)
13-27

Bosworth, A. B. ‘Asinius Pollio and Augustus’, Hist. 21 (1972) 441-73
Bosworth, A. B. ‘Augustus and August: some pitfalls of historical
fiction’, HSCP 86 (1982) 151-70

Botermann, H. Die Soldaten und die rémische Politik in der Zeit von Caesars
Tod bis zur Begriindung des Zweiten Triumvirats (Zetemata 46). Munich, 1968
Boucher, J. P. Caius Cornelius Gallus. Paris, 1966

Bowersock, G. W. Augustus and the Greek World. Oxford, 1965
Bowersock, G. W. ‘Augustus and the East: the succession’, in c 176,
169-88

Braunert, H. ‘Zum Ejingangssatz der Res gestae Divi August, Chiron 4
(1974) 343-58 (=C 44, 238-54)

Braunert, H. ‘Die Gesellschaft des r6mischen Reiches im Urteil des
Augustus’, in A $54, 9-54 (=C 44, 255-93)

Braunert, H. ‘Omnium prouinciarum populi Romani ... fines auxi: ein
Entwurf’, Chiron 7 (1977) 207-17 (=C 44, 294-304)

4S:

46.

47-
48.

49-

50.
51.

52.

TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD, AUGUSTUS 1037

. Braunert, H. Politik, Recht und Gesellschaft in der griechisch-rémischen

Antike, Gesammelte Aufsatze und Reden. Stuttgart, 1980

Bretone, M. ‘II ‘‘diritto antico” nella polemica antiaugustea’, OS 4, 8
(1978) 273-91

Bringmann, K. ‘Imperium proconsulare und Mitregentschaft im frihen
Principat’, Chiron 7 (1977) 219-38

Brunt, P. A. “The lex Valeria Cornelia’, JRS 51 (1961) 71-83

Brunt, P. A. ‘“Augustus” e la “respublica”’ in a 82a, 236-44 (in
English)

Buchheim, H. Die Orientpolitik des Triumvirn M. Antonius. Heidelberg,
1960

Carcopino, J. Passion et politique chez les Césars. Paris, 1958

Carter, J. M. The Battle of Actium. The Rise and Triumph of Augustus Caesar.
New York, 1970

Cartledge, P. ‘The second thoughts of Augustus on the res publica in 28/
7 8.C.’, Hermathena 119 (1975) 30-40

Castritius, H. Der rémische Prinzipat als Republik (Historische Studien
438). Husum, 1982

. Ceausescu. G. ‘Augustus, der ‘“‘Hellenisator” der Welt (Kommentar zu

Philo, Legatio ad Gaium, 143-147)’, Kio 69 (1987) 46-57

. Ceausescu, P. ‘Das programmatische Edikt des Augustus (Suet. Aug. 28,

1) — eine missverstandene Stelle’, RAM 124 (1981) 348-53

. Cerami, P. ‘Ideologie, terminologie e realta costituzionale’, in a 82,

66-73

. Chamoux, F. ‘Gaius Caesar’, BCH 74 (1950) 250~64
. Champlin, E. ‘The testament of Augustus’, RAM 132 (1989) 154-65
. Charbonnel, N. ‘A propos de I’inscription de Kymé et des pouvoirs

d’ Auguste au lendemain du réglement de 27 av. n. é.’, RIDA 26 (1979)
177-225

. Charlesworth, M. P. ‘Some fragments of the propaganda of Mark

Antony’, CQ 27 (1933) 172-7

. Chilver, G. E. F. ‘Augustus and the Roman constitution 1939-50’, Hist.

1 (1950) 408—3 5

. Christ, K. ‘Zur Beurteilung der Politik des Augustus’, GWU 19 (1968)

329-43

. Combés, R. Imperator. Recherches sur Pemploi et la signification du titre

@imperator dans la Rome républicaine. Paris, 1966

. Consigliere, L. ‘Slogans’ monetarie e poesia augustea. Genoa, 1978
. Corbett, J. H. ‘The succession policy of Augustus’, Latomus 33 (1974)

87-97

. Corte, F. della. ‘La breve praefectura urbis di Messalla Corvino’, ®.A‘as

Xdpw (Miscellanea in onore di Eugenio Manni) 11 Rome, 1980. 667-77

. Crook, J. A. “Some remarks on the Augustan constitution’, CR 3 (1953)

10-12

- Crook, J. A. ‘A legal point about Mark Antony’s will’, JRS 47 (1957)

36-8

1038
69.

7O.
71.

72.
73-

74:

76.

77:
78.

79:
8o.

81.
82.

83.
84.

85.
86.

88.

89.
90.

91.
92.

93-

94:
95.

Cc. POLITICAL HISTORY

Csillag, P. ‘Das Eherecht des augusteischen Zeitalters’, K/io 50 (1968)
111-38

Cuff, P. J. ‘The settlement of 23 p.c. A note’, RFIC 101 (1973) 466-77
Daly, L. J. ‘Varro Murena, cos. 23 8.c., [magistratu motu]s est’, Hist. 27
(1978) 83-94

Daly, L. J. ‘The report of Varro Murena’s death (Dio 54.3.5). Its
mistranslation and his assassination’, K/io 65 (1983) 245-61

Daly, L. J. ‘Augustus and the murder of Varro Murena (cos. 23 B.C.)’,
Klio 66 (1984) 157-69

Daly, L. J. and Reiter, W. L. ‘The Gallus-affair and Augustus’ /ex Iusia
maiestatis: a study in historical chronology and causality’, in A 20, I
289-311

De Coninck, L. Suetonius en de Archivalia (Verhand. Ak. Wet., KI. der
Lett. 45 (1983) no. 104). Brussels, 1983

Degrassi, A. ‘I nomi dell’imperatore Augusto: il ‘“praenomen
imperatoris”’, Studi Volterra v (Milan, 1971) 573-92 (=Scritti vari di
antichita 11, 353-71), Venice-Trieste, 1967

Deininger, J. ‘Von der Republik zur Monarchie: die Urspriinge der
Herrschertitulatur des Prinzipats’, ANRW I, 1 (1972) 982-97
Detweiler, R. ‘Historical perspectives on the death of Agrippa
Postumus’, CJ 65 (1970/1) 289-95

Dominguez-Sanchez, B. La politica de Augusto. Bogota, 1960

Dorey, T. A. ‘Adultery and propaganda in the early Roman empire’,
UBH] 8 (1961) 1-6

Earl, D. The Age of Augustus. London, 1968

Eck, W. ‘Augustus’ administrative Reformen: Pragmatismus oder
systematisches Planen?’, AC/iass 29 (1986) 105-20

Erkell, H. Augustus, Felicitas, Fortuna. Lateinische Wortstudien.
Gothenburg, 1952

Espinosa Ruiz, U. Debate Agrippa—Mecenas en Dion Cassio. Madrid, 1982
Fabbrini, F. L’impero di Augusto come ordinamento sovrannazionale. Milan, 1974
Fabre, G. and Roddaz, J. M. ‘Recherches sur la familia de M. Agrippa’,
Athenaeum 60 (1982) 84-112

. Ferrabino, A. ‘L’imperatore Cesare Augusto’, in c 12A, I-59

Ferrill, A. ‘Prosopography and the last years of Augustus’, Hist. 20
(1971) 718-31

Ferrill, A. ‘Augustus and his daughter: a modern myth’, in A 20, 11 332-46
Flach, D. ‘Destinatio und nominatio im frihen Prinzipat’, Chiron 6 (1976)
193-203

Francisci, P. de ‘La costituzione Augustea’, in c 12A, 61-100
Frei-Stolba, R. Untersuchungen zu den Wahlen in der rimischen Kaiserzeit.
Zurich, 1967

Gabba, E. ‘The Perusine War and Triumviral Italy’, HSCP 75 (1971)
139-60

Gabba, E. ‘Sesto Pompeo a Naulocho’, RCCM 19 (1977) 389-92
Gardthausen, V. Augustus und seine Zeit. Leipzig: 1, 1891; 1, 1904

96.
97.

98.

103.
. Griffin, J. ‘Propertius and Antony’, JRS 67 (1977) 17-26 (= Latin Poets

105.
106.
107.
108.
109.

112.
113.
114.
115.
116.

117.
118.

119.
120.

121.
122.
123.
124.

125.
126.
127.

TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD, AUGUSTUS 1039

Geiger, J. ‘An overlooked item of the war of propaganda between
Octavian and Antony’, Hist. 29 (1980) 112-14

Girardet, K. M. ‘Der Rechtsstatus Oktavians im Jahre 32 v. Chr.’, RAM
133 (1990) 322-50 ;

Girardet, K. M. ‘Die Entmachung des Konsulates im Ubergang von der
Republik zur Monarchie’, Festgabe fiir Peter Steinmetz (Palingenesia 30),
ed. Gérler, W. and Koster, S., 89-126. Stuttgart, 1990

. Giua, M. A. ‘Augusto nel libro 56 della storia romana di Cassio Dione’,

Athenaeum 61 (1983) 439-56

. Grant, M. ‘The Augustan “‘constitution”’, G ¢& R 18 (1949) 97-112
. Grant, M. Cleopatra. St Albans, 1974
. Gray, E. W. ‘The crisis in Rome at the beginning of 32 B.c.’, PACA 13

(1975) 15-29
Grenade, P. Essai sur les origines du principat. Paris, 1961

and Roman Life, 32-47. London, 1985)

Griffiths, J. G. ‘The death of Cleopatra VII’, JE.A 49 (1961) 113-18
Grimal, P. ‘Le promenade d’Evandre et Enée’, REA 50 (1948) 348-51
Grimal, P. ‘Enée a Rome et le triomphe d’Octave’, RE.A 53 (1951) 51-61
Hadas, M. Sextus Pompey. New York, 1930

Hallett, J. P. ‘Perusinae glandes and the changing image of Augustus’,
AJ AH 2 (1977) 151-71

. Hammond, M. The Axgustan Principate. Cambridge, MA, 1933; repr.

with appendix, 1968

. Hammond, M. ‘Hellenistic influences on the structure of the Augustan

principate’, MAAR 17 (1940) 1-25

Hammond, M. ‘The sincerity of Augustus’, HSCP 69 (1965) 139-52
Hanell, K. ‘Kaiser Augustus’, Gyan. 78 (1971) 188-200

Hanslik, R. ‘Horaz und Varro Murena’, RAM 96 (1953) 282-7
Hanslik, R. ‘M. Vipsanius Agrippa’, RE rx, 1 (1961) 1226-75

Hanson, A. E. ‘Juliopolis, Nicopolis, and the Roman camp’, ZPE 37
(1980) 249-34

Herrmann, P. Der rémische Kaisereid (Hypomnemata 20). Gottingen, 1968
Heuss, A. ‘Zeitgeschichte als Ideologie. Komposition und
Gedankenfiihrung der Res gestae diui Augusti’, in A 554, 55-95

Hohl, E. ‘Augustus’, Altertum 2 (1956) 224-41

Hornblower, S. ‘Another suggestion about ‘Varrones orem Iullos’
(Tac. Ann. 1 10)’, LCM 12 (1987) 114

Horsfall, N. ‘Labeo and Capito’, Hist. 23 (1974) 252-4

Huzar, E. G. Mark Antony: a Biography. Minneapolis, 1978

Instinsky, H. U. ‘Consensus uniuersorum’, Hermes 75 (1940) 265-78
Instinsky, H. U. ‘Augustus und die Adoption des Tiberius’, Hermes 44
(1966) 324-43

Jameson, S. ‘22 or 23?’, Hist. 8 (1969) 204-29

Jameson, S. ‘Augustus and Agrippa Postumus’, Hist. 24 (1975) 287-314
Jeffreys, R. ‘The date of Messalla’s death’, CQ 35 (1985) 140-8

1040
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.

136.
137.

138.
139.
140.
141.
142.

143.

144.
145.

146.

147.
148.
149.
150.

Isl.

152.
153.

154.

Cc. POLITICAL HISTORY

Johnson, J. R. ‘The authenticity and validity of Antony’s will’, AC 47
(1978) 494-503

Jones, A. H. M. ‘The imperium of Augustus’, JRS 41 (1951) 112-19 (=a
47, 1-17)

Jones, A. H. M. ‘The censorial powers of Augustus’, in 4 47, 19-26
Jones, A. H. M. Axgustus. London, 1970

Judge, E. ‘Res publica restituta. A modern illusion>’, in Polis and
Imperium (Studies in honour of E. T. Salmon), 279-311. Toronto, 1974
Keddie, J. N. ‘The identity of Aelius Gallus (Tacitus, Ann. v, 8,1)’, ina
20, I 312-16

Kennedy, D. F. Review of Woodman and West 1984 (B 204), LCM 9.10
(1984) 157-6o

Kienast, D. ‘Horaz und die erste Krise des Prinzipats’, Chiron 1 (1971)
239-51

Kienast, D. Augustus. Prinzeps und Monarch. Darmstadt, 1982

Kienast, D. ‘Corpus imperit. Uberlegungen zum Reichsgedanken der
Romer’, in A 107A, 1-17

Knibbe, D. ‘Quandoque quis trium virorum rei publicae constituendae’,
ZPE 44 (1981) 1-10

Konig, 1. ‘Der doppelte Geburtstag des Augustus: 23, 24 September
(Suet. Aug. 51, 1 [sé])’, Epigraphica 34 (1972) 3-15

Kraft, K. ‘Zu Sueton Divas Augustus 69.2’, Hermes 95 (1967) 496-9
Kromayer, J. Die rechtliche Begriindung des Prinzipats. Marburg, 1888
Kromayer, J. ‘Kleine Forschungen zur Geschichte des zweiten
Triumvirats, IV: Der Partherzug des Antonius’, Hermes 31 (1896) 7o-104
Kromayer, J. ‘Kleine Forschungen zur Geschichte des zweiten
Triumvirats, VI: Die Vorgeschichte des Kriegs von Actium’, Hermes 33
(1898) 13-70

Kromayer, J. ‘Der Feldzug von Actium und der sogenannte Verrath der
Cleopatra’, Hermes 34 (1899) 1-54

Kunkel, W. ‘Uber das Wesen des augusteischen Prinzipats’, Gymn. 68
(1961) 353-70 (= Kleine Schriften (1974) 383-404)

Lacey, W. K. ‘Octavian in the senate, January 27 B.c.’, JRS 64 (1974)
176-84

Lacey, W. K. ‘Summi fastigii uocabulum. The story of a title’, JRS 69
(1979) 28-34

Lacey, W. K. ‘2 B.c. and Julia’s adultery’, Antichthon 14 (1980) 127-42
Lacey, W. K. ‘19 B.c.’, Classicum 23 (1983) 30-5

Lacey, W. K. ‘Augustus and the senate, 23 B.c.’, Antichthon 19 (1985)
57-67

Laet, S. J. de ‘Ou en est le probléme de Ia juridiction impériale?’, AC 14
(1945) 145-63

Last, H. M. ‘Imperium maius: a note’, JRS 37 (1947) 157-64

Last, H. M. ‘On the “tribunicia potestas” of Augustus’, RIL 84 (1951)
93-110 (=C 208, 241-6, in German)

Leon, E. F. ‘Scribonia and her daughters’, TAP_A 82 (1951) 168-75

155.

156.
157.

158.
159.

160.
161.

162.
163.
164.
165.
166,
167.
168.

169.
170.

171.
172.

173.
174.
175.
176,
177.

178.

179.
180.
181.

182.
183.

TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD, AUGUSTUS 104!

Levick, B. M. ‘Drusus Caesar and the adoptions of a.p. 4’, Latomus 25
(1966) 227-44

Levick, B. M. “The beginning of Tiberius’ career’, CQ 21 (1971) 478-86
Levick, B. M. ‘Abdication and Agrippa Postumus’, Hist. 21 (1972)
674-97

Levick, B. M. ‘Atrox fortuna’, CR 22 (1972) 309-11

Levick, B. M. ‘Tiberius’ retirement to Rhodes in 6 B.c.’, Latomus 31
(1972) 779-813

Levick, B. M. ‘Julians and Claudians’, G ¢» R 22 (1975) 29-38

Levick, B. M. ‘Primus, Murena, and fides: notes on Cassius Dio 54.3’, G
e R 22 (1975) 156-63

Levick, B. M. ‘The fall of Julia the Younger’, Latomus 35 (1976) 301-39
Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. ‘The settlement of 27 B.c.’, in A 20, IV 345-65
Linderski, J. ‘Rome, Aphrodisias and the Res Gestae: the Genera Militiae
and the status of Octavian’, J/RS 74 (1984) 74-80

Linderski, J. ‘Julia in Regium’, ZPE 72 (1988) 181-200

Mackie, N. K. ‘Res publica restituta. A Roman myth’, in A 20, Iv 303-40
Magdelain, A. Axctoritas Principis. Paris, 1947

Malcovati, E. ‘Il nuovo frammento augusteo della Laudatio Agrippae’,
Athenaeum 50 (1972) 142-51 (also 389)

Malitz, J. ‘Caesars Partherkrieg’, Hist. 33 (1984) 21-59

Manfredini, A. D. ‘Ottaviano l’Egitto i senatori e l’oracolo’, Labeo 32
(1986) 7-26

Mannsperger, D. ‘Apollo gegen Dionysos’, Gym. 80 (1973) 381-404
Martin, P. M. ‘A propos de I’exil d’Ovide et de la succession d’ Auguste’,
Latomus 45 (1986) Gog-11

Maschkin, N. A. Zwischen Republik und Kaiserreich. Ursprung und sozialer
Charakter des augusteischen Prinzipats (transl. by M. Brandt). Leipzig, 1954
Millar, F. “Two Augustan notes’, CR 18 (1968) 263-6

Millar, F. “Triumvirate and principate’, JRS 63 (1973) 50-67

Millar, F. and Segal, E. (eds.) Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects. Oxford,
1984

Mitchell, T. N. ‘The inevitability of the Principate’, Thought 55. 216
(1980) 18-35

Nenci, G. ‘Gaio e Lucio Cesari nella politica Augustea’, Introduzione alle
guerre persiane e altri saggi di storia antica (Studie Testi 15), 310-47. Pisa,
1958

Newman, J. K. Augustus and the New Poetry (Coll. Latomus 88). Brussels,
1967

Nicolet, C. ‘Augustus, government and the propertied classes’, in c 176,
89-128

Oliver, J. H. ‘On the Hellenic policy of Augustus and Agrippa in 27 B.c.’,
AJPh 93 (1972) 190-7

Orestano, R. ‘Rivisitazione di Augusto’, in A 82A, 270-316

Paladini, M. L. ‘I poteri di Tiberio Cesare dal 4 al 14 d.C.’, in Hommages
Renard 11 (Coll. Latomus 102) 573-99. Brussels, 1969

1042

184.
185.

186.
187.

188.

189.

190.

191.

192.
193.

194.

195.
196.

197.

198.
199.

204.
205.

206.
207.

208.
209.

z10.

C. POLITICAL HISTORY

Palmer, R. E. A. ‘Octavian’s first attempt to restore the constitution (36
B.C.)’, Athenaeum 56 (1978) 315-28
Pani, M. Tendenze politiche della successione al principato di Augusto. Bari,

1979

Pelling, C. B. R. ‘Puppes sinistrorsum citae’, CO 36 (1986) 177-81
Piganiol, A. ‘Les pouvoirs constitutionnels et le principat d’Auguste’, JS
(1937) 150-66

Polverini, L. ‘L’aspetto sociale del passaggio dalla repubblica al
principato’, Aevum 38 (1964) 241-85, 439-67; 39 (1965) 77-100
Pouilloux, J. ‘Deux amis: le Stratége Diogenes fils de Noumenios et le
Gymnasiarche Stasicrates fils de Stasicrates’, [Tpaxrtexa Tou 1°” AveBvots
Kumpodoyixot Luvedpiov, 141-50. Lefkosia, 1972

Raaflaub, K. A. ‘The political significance of Augustus’ military
reforms’, in Hanson, W. S. and Keppie, L. J. F. (eds.) Rowan Frontier
Studies 1979, u1 (BAR International Series 71), 1005-25. Oxford, 1980
Raaflaub, K. and Toher, M. Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of
Augustus and his Principate. Berkeley, 1990

Raepsaet-Charlier, M.-Th. ‘Clarissima femina’, RIDA 28 (1981) 189-212
Rapke, T. T. ‘Julia and C. Proculeius. A note on Suetonius, Augustus 63,
2’, LCM 9 (1984) 21-2

Rapke, T. T. ‘Varrones Egnatios Iullos: Tacitus Annals 1 10, 4’, LCM 12
(1987) 99

Rapke, T. T. ‘Some unexpected consulships’, AncW 20 (1989) 47-56
Reinhold, M. ‘Augustus’ conception of himself’, Thought 55. 216 (1980)
36-50

Rich, J. W. ‘Agrippa and the nobles. A note on Dio 54.29.6’, LCM 5
(1980) 217-21

Rieks, R. ‘Sebasta und Aktia’, Hermes 98 (1970) 96-116

Roddaz, J.-M. ‘Un théme de la “propagande” augustéenne. L’image
populaire d’Agrippa’, MEFRA 92 (1980) 947-56

. Roddaz, J.-M. Marcus Agrippa (BEFAR 253). Rome, 1984

. Roddaz, J.-M. ‘Lucius Antonius’, Hist. 37 (1988) 317-46

. Rowland, R. J. “The conspiracy of Varro Murena’, CJ 62 (1966/7) 362-3
. Ruikes, P. W. Samenzweringen en Intriges tegen Octavianus Augustus Princeps

(Diss., Nijmegen, 1966). Maastricht, 1976

Salmon, E. T. “The evolution of Augustus’ principate’, Hist. 5 (1956) 456-78
Salmon, E. T. ‘Augustus the patrician’, in Dunston, A. J. (ed.) Essays on
Roman Culture: the Todd Memorial Lectures, 3-33. Toronto, 1976
Samuel, A. E. ‘The joint regency of Cleopatra and Caesarion’, Etudes de
Papyrologie 9 (1971) 73-9

Scheid, J. ‘Scribonia Caesaris et les Julio-Claudiens. Problémes de
vocabulaire de parenté’, MEFRA 87 (1975) 349-75

Schmitthenner, W. (ed.) Agustus. Darmstadt, 1969
Schumacher, L. ‘Die imperatorischen Akklamationen der Triumvirn
und die Auspicia des Augustus’, Hist. 34 (1985) 191-222

Schwartz, J. ‘Recherches sur les derniéres années du régne d’ Auguste (4—
14)’, RP 19 (1945) 21-90

214.
215.

216,

217.
218.

219.

220.

221.
. Stockton, D. L. ‘Augustus sab specie aeternitatis’, Thought 55. 216 (1980)

223.

224.

225.
226.

227.
228.

229.
230.

231,

232.
233.

234.
235.
236.
237.

238.

TRIUMVIRAL PERIOD, AUGUSTUS 1043

. Scott, K. ‘Octavian’s propaganda and Antony’s De sua ebrietate’, CP 24

(1929) 133-41

. Scott, K. ‘The political propaganda of 44-30B.c.’, MAAR 11 (1933) 7-49
. Shotter, D. C. A. ‘Julians, Claudians, and the accession of Tiberius’,

Latomus 30 (1971) 1117-23

Siber, H. Das Fahreramt des Augustus. AS AW 4a, no. 2. Leipzig, 1940
Signon, H. Agrippa. Freund und Mitregent des Augustus. Frankfurt, 1978
Simpson, C. J. “The change in praenomen of Drusus Germanicus’, Phoenix
42 (1988) 173-5

Sirago, V. A. I/ principato di Augusto: concentrazione di proprieta. Bari, 1978
Sirago, V. A. ‘L’aspetto economico dell’opera di Augusto’, Labeo 26
(1980) 378-89; repr. in A 82A, 258-69

Skeat, T. C. ‘The last days of Cleopatra’, JRS 43 (1953) 98-100

Starr, C. G. ‘How did Augustus stop the Roman revolution?’, CJ 52
(1956/7) 107-12 (= Essays on Ancient History, 222-7. Leiden, 1979)
Stockton, D. L. ‘Primus and Murena’, Hist. 14 (1965) 18-40

s-17
Suerbaum, W. ‘Merkwiirdige Geburtstage. Der nicht-existierende
Geburtstag des M. Antonius, der doppelte Geburtstag des Augustus, der
neue Geburtstag der Livia und der vorzeitige Geburtstag des dlteren
Drusus’, Chiron 10 (1980) 327-55

Sumner, G. V. ‘Germanicus and Drusus Caesar’, Latomus 26 (1967)
413-35

Sumner, G. V. ‘Varrones Murenae’, HSCP 82 (1978) 187-95

Swan, M. ‘The consular fasti of 23 B.c. and the conspiracy of Varro
Murena’, HSCP 71 (1966) 235-47

Swan, M. ‘ITpoBdAe8at in Dio’s account of elections under Augustus’,
CQ 32 (1982) 436-40

Syme, R. ‘Imperator Caesar: a study in nomenclature’, Hist. 7 (1958) 172—
88 (=A 94, 1, 361-77)

Syme, R. ‘The crisis of 2 B.c.’, SBAW 7 (1974) 3-34 (=A 94, UL, 912-36)
Syme, R. ‘Some imperatorial salutations’, Phoenix 33 (1979) 308-29 (=A
94, UT, 1198-219)

Syme, R. ‘Neglected children on the Ara Pacis’, AJA 88 (1984) 583-9
(= (with improvements) A 94, Iv, 418-29)

Tarn, W. W. ‘The Battle of Actium’, JRS 21 (1931) 173-99

Tarn, W. W. ‘Alexander Helios and the Golden Age’, JRS 22 (1932)
135-60

Thibault, J. C. The Mystery of Ovid’s Exile. Berkeley—Los Angeles, 1964
Tibiletti, G. Principe e magistrati repubblicani. Rome, 1953

Timpe, D. ‘Die Bedeutung der Schlacht von Carrhae’, MH 19 (1962)
104-29

Valvo, A. ‘M. Valerio Messalla Corvino negli studi piu recenti’, ANRW
IT, 30. 3 (1983) 1663-80

Vassileiou, A. ‘Sur les dates de naissance de Drusus, de Caius et Lucius
César’, RPA 58 (1984) 45-52

1044
239.
240.
241.
242.

243.
244.

245.
246.
247.
248.

249.

251.

252.

253.
254.

255.
256.
257.
258.
259.
260.

261.

C. POLITICAL HISTORY

Vittinghoff, F. Rémische Kolonisation und Birgerrechtspolitik unter Caesar und
Augustus (Akad. Mainz Abh. Geistes und Sozialwissensch. KI. Jhrg.
1951 no. 14). Wiesbaden, 1952

Vittinghoff, F. Kaiser Augustus. Gottingen, 1959

Volkmann, H. ‘Mos maiorum als Grundzug des augusteischen
Prinzipats’, in Berve, H. (ed.) Das neue Bild der Antike 1, 246-64. Leipzig,
1942 (=(with certain omissions) Endoxos Duleia, 173-90. Berlin, 1975)
Wallmann, P. ‘Zur Zusammensetzung und Haltung des Senats im Jahre
32 v. Chr.’, Hist. 25 (1976) 305-12

Wallmann, P. Triumviri rei publicae constituendae. Frankfurt, 1989
Watkins, O. D. ‘Horace, Odes 2.10 and Licinius Murena’, Hist. 34 (1985)
125-7

Weigel, R. D. ‘Augustus’ relations with the Aemilii Lepidi: persecution
and patronage’, RAM 128 (1985) 180-91

Weller, J. A. “Tacitus and Tiberius’ Rhodian exile’, Phoenix 12 (1958)
31-5

Welwei, K. W. ‘Augustus als vindex libertatis. Freiheitsideologie und
Propaganda im frithen Prinzipat’, AU 16 (1973) 29-41

Wickert, L. ‘Der Prinzipat und die Freiheit’, in Symbola Coloniensia
(Festschr. Kroll) 111-41. Cologne, 1949

Wieacker, F. ‘Zur Verfassungsstruktur des augusteischen Prinzipats’,
(Festschr. Grewe) 639-53. Baden-Baden, 1981

. Wilinski, A. and Kurylowicz, M. ‘Dalla repubblica al principato’, in a

82A, 217-22

Williams, G. ‘Poetry in the moral climate of Augustan Rome’, J/RS 52
(1962) 28-46

Yavetz, Z. Julius Caesar and his Public Image. London, 1983

2. THE EXPANSION OF THE EMPIRE, 43 B.C.—A.D. 69

Barnes, T. D. “The Victories of Augustus’, JRS 64 (1974) 21-6
Braund, D. Rome and the Friendly King: the Character of Client Kingship.
London-Canberra—New York, 1984

Braunert, H. ‘Omnium provinciarum populi Romani fines aux, Chiron 7
(1977) 207-17

Brunt, P. A. Review of Meyer, H. Die Aussenpolitik des Augustus (=c
288), JRS 53 (1963) 170-6 (=A 12, 96-109)

Brunt, P. A. ‘Laws Imperi?, in Garnsey, P. D. A. and Whittaker, C. R.
(eds.) Imperialism in the Ancient World, 159-91. Cambridge, 1978 (=A 12,
288-323)

Burstein, S. M. ‘Cornelius Gallus and Aethiopia’, AHB 2 (1988) 16-20
Christ, K. ‘Zur rémischen Okkupation der Zentralalpen und des
nordlichen Alpenvorlandes’, Hist. 6 (1957) 416-28

Christ, K. ‘Zur augusteischen Germanienpolitik’, Chiron 7 (1977)
149-205

Deman, A. ‘Matériaux et réflexions pour servir 4 une étude du
développement et du sous-développement dans les provinces de l’empire
romain’, ANRW II, 3 (1975) 3-97

262.
263.

264.
265.
266.
267.
268.
269.
270.
271.
272.
273.

274.

275.
276.

277.
278.
279.
280.
281.
282.
283.
284.
285.

286.
287.

43 B.C.—A.D. 69 1045

Desanges, J. ‘Le triomphe de Cornelius Balbus’, Rev Afr (1957) 1-43
Desanges, J. ‘Les relations de l’empire romain avec |’ Afrique nilotique et
érythréene, d’Auguste 4 Probus’, 4NRW II, 10.1 (1988) 3-43

Dobias, J. ‘King Maroboduus as a politician’, K/io 38 (1960) 15 5—66
Doblhofer, E. ‘Horaz und Augustus’, ANRW II, 31.3 (1981) 1922-86
Dyson, S. L. ‘Native revolt-patterns in the Roman Empire’, ANRW II,
3 (1975) 138-75

Fears, J. R. ‘The cult of virtues and Roman imperial ideology’, ANRW
II, 17.2 (1981) 827-948

Fears, J. R. ‘The theology of victory at Rome: approaches and problems’,
ANRW II, 17.2 (1981) 737-825

Griffin, J. ‘Augustus and the poets: “‘Caesar qui cogere posset”’, in C
176, 189-218

Grosso, F. ‘La Media Atropatene e la politica di Augusto’, Athenaeum 35
(1957) 240-56

Gruen, E. S. ‘Augustus and the ideology of war and peace’, in The Age of
Augustus (Archaeologica Transatlantica, v) 51-72. Louvain, 1986
Grummond, N. de. ‘Pax Augusta and the Horae on the Ara Pacis
Augustae’, AJA 94 (1990) 663-77

Harris, W. V. War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327~70 B.c. Oxford,
1979

Hartley, B. and Wacher, J. (eds.) Rome and her Northern Provinces (Papers
presented to Sheppard Frere in honour of his retirement from the Chair
of the Archaeology of the Roman Empire, University of Oxford, 1983).
Gloucester, 1983

Hoffman, M. ‘Ptolemaios von Mauretania’, RE xxrtr, 3 (1959) 1780-82
Horrent, J. ‘Nota sobre el desarrollo de la guerra Cantabra del afio 26
a.C.’, Emerita 21 (1953) 279-90

Huzar, E. ‘Augustus, heir of the Ptolemies’, ANRW II, 10.1 (1988)
343-82

Isaac, B. The Limits of Empire: the Roman Army in the East. Oxford, 1990.
2nd edn. 1992

Jal, P. ‘L’impérialisme romain: observations sur les témoignages
littéraires latins de la fin de la République romaine’, Ktema 7 (1982)
143-50

Kneissl, P. ‘Zur Entstehung der Provinz Noricum’, Chiron 9 (1979) 261-73
Koestermann, E. ‘Der pannonisch-dalmatische Krieg 6-9 n. Chr.’,
Hermes 81 (1953) 345-78

Koestermann, E. ‘Die Feldziige des Germanicus, 14~16 n. Chr.’, Hist. 6
(1957) 429-79

Letta, C. ‘La dinastia dei Cozii e la romanizzazione delle Alpi occidentali’,
Athenaeum 64 (1976) 37-76

Luce, T. J. ‘Livy, Augustus, and the Forum Augustum’, inc 191, 123-38
Magie, D. ‘Augustus’ War in Spain’, CPA 15 (1920) 323-39

Mann, J.C. ‘The frontiers of the Principate’, 4 NRW II, 1 (1974) 508-33
Martino, E. Roma contra Cantabros y Astures. Nueva lectura de las fuentes.
Santander, 1982

1046

288.
289.
290.

291.

292.
293.
294.

295.
296.

298.

299.
300.

301.
302.
303.
304.
305.
306.
307.

308.
309-

310.

31t.
312.

Cc. POLITICAL HISTORY

Meyer, H. Die Aussenpolitik des Augustus und die augusteische Dichtung
(K6lner hist. Abhandlungen 5). Cologne, 1961

Mocsy, A. ‘Der vertuschte Dakerkrieg des M. Licinius Crassus’, Hist. 15
(1966) 511-14

Momigliano, A. ‘Panegyricus Messalae and ‘“Panegyricus Vespasiani”: two
references to Britain’, JRS 40 (1950) 39-42

Moynihan, R. ‘Geographical mythology and Roman imperial ideology’,
in The Age of Augustus (Archaeologica Transatlantica, v), 149-62.
Louvain, 1986

Negev, A. “The Nabataeans and the Provincia Arabia’, ANRW II, 8
(1978) 520-686

Ober, J. ‘Tiberius and the political testament of Augustus’, Hist. 31
(1982) 306-28

Oldfather, W. A. and Canter, H. V. The Defeat of Varus and the German
Frontier Policy of Augustus. Urbana, IL, 1915

Pani, M. Roma e ire dOriente da Augusto a Tiberio. Bari, 1972

Pavis d’Escurac, H. ‘L’impérialisme romain en Maurétanie de 33 av. J.-
C. a 40 ap. J.-C.’, Ktema 7 (1982) 221-33

. Rachet, M. Rome et les Berbéres. Un probléme militaire d? Auguste a Dioclétien.

Brussels, 1970

Raschke, M. ‘New studies in Roman commerce with the East’, ANRW
II, 9.2 (1978) 604-1378

Ritter, H. W. Rom und Numidien. Lineburg, 1987

Romer, F. E. ‘A numismatic date for the departure of C. Caesar’, TAPA
108 (1978) 187-202

Romer, F. E. ‘Gaius Caesar’s military diplomacy in the East’, TAP.A 109
(1979) 199-214

Romer, F. E. ‘A case of Client Kingship’, AJP 106 (1985) 75-100
Santos, F. D. ‘Die Integration Nord- und Nordwestspaniens als
romische Provinz in der Reichspolitik des Augustus. Von der
konsularischen zur hispanischen Ara’, ANRW II, 3 (1975) 523-71
Schmitthenner, W. ‘Octavians militarische Unternehmungen in den
Jahren 35-33 v. Chr.’, Hist. 7 (1958) 189-236

Schmitthenner, W. ‘Augustus’ spanischer Feldzug und der Kampf um
den Prinzipat’, Hist. 11 (1962) 29-85 (=C 208, 404-85)
Schmitthenner, W. ‘Rome and India. Aspects of universal history during
the principate’, JRS 69 (1979) go—106

Scholz, U. W. ‘Herculis ritu— Augustus — consule Planco’, WS 84 (1971)
123-37

Seager, R. ‘The return of the standards in 20 B.c.’, LCM 2 (1977) 201-2
Seager, R. ‘New sinas Medos equitare inultos: Horace, the Parthians and
Augustan foreign policy’, Athenaeum 58 (1980) 103-18

Sidebotham, S. E. Roman Economic Policy in the Erythra Thalassa, 30 3.C.—
A.D. 217 (Mnemosyne supplement 91). Leiden, 1986

Sidebotham, S. E. ‘Aelius Gallus and Arabia’, Latomus 45 (1986) 590—-Goz
Syme, R. “The northern frontiers under Augustus’, CAH x!, 340-81.
Cambridge, 1934

313-
314.

315.
316.
317.

318.

319.
320.

321.

322.
323.

324.

325.

327-

328.

329.
330.
331.
332.

333-
334.

335-
336.
337-
338.
339-
340.
341.

JULIO-CLAUDIANS AND A.D. 69 1047

Syme, R. ‘The Spanish war of Augustus’, AJP 55 (1934) 293-317
Syme, R. ‘The conquest of northwest Spain’, in Legio VII Gemina, 83—
107. Leon, 1970

Telschow, K. ‘Die Abberufung des Germanicus (16 n. Chr.). Ein
Beispiel fiir die Kontinuitat romischer Germanienpolitik von Augustus
zu Tiberius’, in a 55a, 148~82

Timpe, D. ‘Drusus’ Umkehr an der Elbe’, RAM 110 (1967) 289-306
Timpe, D. ‘Zur Geschichte und Uberlieferung der Okkupation
Germaniens unter Augustus’, Saecu/um 18 (1967) 278-93

Timpe, D. Der Triumph des Germanicus. Untersuchungen zu den Feldziigen der
Jahre 14-16 n. Chr. in Germanien. Bonn, 1968

Timpe, D. Arminius-Studien. Heidelberg, 1970

Timpe, D. ‘Zur augusteischen Partherpolitik zwischen 30 und 20 v.
Chr.’, WJA 1 (1975) 155-69

Timpe, D. ‘Zur Geschichte der Rheingrenze zwischen Caesar und
Drusus’, in A 55A, 124-47

Vulic, N. ‘The Illyrian war of Octavian’, JRS 24 (1934) 163-7

Welwei, K. W. ‘Rémische Weltherrschaftsideologie und augusteische
Germanienpolitik’, Gyn. 93 (1986) 118-37

Whittaker, C. R. Les frontiéres de ! Empire romain (Ann. Litt. Univ.
Besangon 390). Paris, 1989

Williams, G. ‘Did Maecenas “fall from favor’? Augustan literary
patronage’, inc 191, 258-75

. Wissman, H. von. ‘Die Geschichte des Sabaerreichs und der Feldzug des

Aelius Gallus’, ANRW II, 9.1 (1978) 308-544
Ziegler, F. H. Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich. Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte des Vilkerrechtes. Wiesbaden, 1964

3. THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS AND THE YEAR A.D. 69

Alféldy, G. ‘La politique provinciale de Tibére’, Latomus 24 (1965)
824-44

Ameling, W. ‘Tyrannen und schwangere Frauen’, Hist. 35 (1986) 507-8
Baldwin, B. ‘Executions under Claudius’, Phoenix 18 (1964) 39-48
Balsdon, J. P. V. D. The Emperor Gaius. Oxford, 1934

Barrett, A. A. ‘Chronological errors in Dio’s account of the Claudian
invasion’, Britannia 11 (1980) 31-3

Barrett, A. A. Caligula: the Corruption of Power. London, 1989

Brunt, P. A. ‘The revolt of Vindex and the fall of Nero’, Latomus 18
(1959) 531-59 (=A 12, 9-32)

Brunt, P. A. ‘Lex de Imperio Vespasiani’, JRS 67 (1977) 95-116

Burr, V. Tiberius Iulius Alexander. Bonn, 1955

Ceausescu, P. ‘Caligula et le legs d’ Auguste’, Hist. 22 (1973) 269-83
Chandler, D. C. ‘Quaestor Ostiensis’, Hist. 27 (1978) 328-35

Chilver, G. E. F. ‘The army in politics, a.D. 68-70’, JRS 47 (1957) 29-36
Cizek, E. L’ Epoque de Néron et ses controverses idéologiques. Leiden, 1972
Cizek, E. ‘L’expérience néronienne’, REA 84 (1982) 105-15

1048

342.
343.

344.

345.
346.

347-
348.
349.

350.

351.
392.
353-
354.
355-
356.

357:
358.

359-
360.

361.
362.

363.

364.
365.

366.
367.

368.
369.
379.

371.
372.
373-

374.
375.

Cc. POLITICAL HISTORY

Daly, J. L. ‘Verginius at Vesontio’, Hist. 24 (1975) 75-100

Ehrhardt, C. ‘Messalina and the succession to Claudius’, Antichthon 12
(1978) 51-77

Gallivan, P. A. ‘Some comments on the fasti for the reign of Nero’, CQ
24 (1974) 290-311

Gallivan, P. A. ‘The fast for the reign of Claudius’, CQ 28 (1978) 407-26
Gallivan, P. A. ‘The fasti for the reign of Gaius’, Antichthon 13 (1979)
66-9

Gallivan, P. A. ‘The fasti for A.D. 70-96’, CO 31 (1981) 186-220
Gallotta, B. Germanico. Rome, 1988

Gapp, K. S. ‘The universal famine under Claudius’, HTR 28 (1935)
258-65

Gordon, A. E. Quintus Veranius Consul a.p. 49 (University of California
Publications in Classical Archaeology u. 5). 1952

Greenhalgh, P. A. L. The Year of the Four Emperors. London, 1975
Griffin, M. T. Nero: the End of a Dynasty. London, 1984

Hennig, D. ‘Zur Agyptenreise des Germanicus’, Chiron 2 (1972) 349-65
Hennig, D. L. Aelius Seianus (Vestigia 21). Munich, 1975

Hind, J. G. F. ‘The middle years of Nero’s reign’, Hist. 20 (1971) 488-505
Holladay, J. ‘The election of magistrates in the early principate’, Latomus
37 (1978) 874-93

Houston, G. W. ‘Tiberius on Capri’, G e R 32 (1985) 178-96
Jakobson, A. and Cotton, H. M. ‘Caligula’s recusatio imperil’, Hist. 34
(1985) 497-503

Jones, B. W. The Emperor Titus. London, 1984

Jones, B. W. ‘Agrippina and Vespasian’, Latomus 43 (1984) 581-3
Jung, H. ‘Die Thronerhebung des Claudius’, Chiron 2 (1972) 367-86
Koestermann, E. ‘Die Feldziige des Germanicus 14-16 n. Chr.’, Hist. 6
(1957) 429-79

Koestermann, E. ‘Die Mission des Germanicus im Orient’, Hist. 7 (1958)
331-75

Kokkinos, N. Antonia Augusta: Portrait of a Roman Lady. London, 1992
Levick, B. M. ‘Imperial control of elections under the early principate’,
Hist. 16 (1967) 207-30

Levick, B. M. Tiberius the Politician. London, 1976

Levick, B. M. ‘Antiquarian or revolutionary? Claudius Caesar’s
conception of his principate’, AJP 99 (1978) 79-105

Levick, B. M. ‘Nero’s Quinquennium’, in A 20, I11, 211-25

Levick, B. M. ‘The Senatus Consultum from Larinum’, [RS 73 (1983) 97-115
Levick, B. M. ‘L. Verginius Rufus and the four emperors’, RAM 128
(1985) 318-46

Levick, B. M. ‘The politics of the early Principate’, in a 108, 45-68
Levick, B. M. Claudius. London, 1990

McAlindon, D. ‘Senatorial opposition to Claudius and Nero’, AJPA 77
(1956) 113-32

McAlindon, D. ‘Claudius and the senators’, AJ Ph 78 (1957) 279-86
Meise, E. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Julisch-Claudischen Dynastie.
Munich, 1969

376.
377:

378.

379-
380.

381.
382.
383.
384.
385.
386.

387.
388.
389.
390.
391.

392.
393.
394-
395-

396.

397-
398.

399-

400.
4ol.

402.
403.

404.
405.
406.

407.
408,
409.
410.

JULIO-CLAUDIANS AND A.D. 69 1049

Moeller, W. O. ‘The riot of a.p. 59 at Pompeii’, Hist. 19 (1970) 84-95
Momigliano, A. Claudius: the Emperor and his Achievement. Oxford, 1934;
2nd edn. Cambridge, 1961

Murison, C. L. ‘Some Vitellian dates’, TAPA 109 (1979)187—-97
Murison, C. L. ‘Galba in Germany A.D. 43’, Hist. 34 (1985) 254-6
Murray, O. ‘The Quinquennium Neronis and the Stoics’, Hist. 14 (1965)
41-61

Nicols, J. Vespasian and the Partes Flavianae. Wiesbaden, 1978

Oliver, J. H. ‘The descendants of Asinius Pollio’, AJP 68 (1947) 147-60
Oost, S. J. ‘The career of M. Antonius Pallas’, AJPé 79 (1958) 113-39
Orth, W. Die Provinzialpolitik des Tiberius. Munich, 1970

Pippidi, D. M. Autour de Tibére. Rome, 1965

Raaflaub, K. A. ‘Grundziige, Ziele und Ideen der Opposition gegen die
Kaiser im 1. Jh.n. Chr.: Versuch einer Standortbestimmung’, Opposition
et résistances (Entretiens Hardt 33) 1-55. Vandoeuvres—Geneva, 1987
Reece, B. R. ‘The date of Nero’s death’, AJPh 90 (1969) 72-4

Rogers, R. S. Studies in the Reign of Tiberius. Baltimore, 1943

Roper, T. K. ‘Nero, Seneca and Tigellinus’, Hist. 28 (1979) 346-57
Sancery, J. Gaba. Paris, 1983

Schmitt, H. H. ‘Der Pannonische Aufstand d. J. 14n. Chr.’, His¢. 7 (1958)
378-83

Seager, R. Tiberius. London, 1972

Shotter, D. C. A. ‘Tiberius and Asinius Gallus’, Hist. 20 (1971) 443-57
Simpson, C. J. ‘The “conspiracy” of A.D. 39’, in A 20 11, 347-66

Swan, M. ‘Josephus, A. J. XIX 251-252: Opposition to Caius and
Claudius’, AJP 91 (1970) 149-64

Syme, R. ‘Piso Frugi and Crassus Frugi’, JRS 50 (1960) 12-20(=4 94, I,
496-509)

Syme, R. ‘Domitius Corbulo’, JRS 60 (1970) 27-39 (=A 94 II, 805-24)
Syme, R. ‘History or biography: the case of Tiberius Caesar’, Hist. 23
(1974) 481-96 (=A 94 11, 937-52)

Syme, R. ‘The march of Mucianus’, Antichthon 11 (1977) 78-92 (=A 94,
Il, 998-1013)

Syme, R. ‘Partisans of Galba’, Hist. 31 (1982) 460-83 (= 94, IV, 115-39)
Syme, R. ‘The marriage of Rubellius Blandus’, AJPA 103 (1982) 62-85
(=A 94, IV, 177-98)

Timpe, D. ‘Rémische Geschichte bei Flavius Josephus’, Hist. 9 (1960)
474-502

Timpe, D. Untersuchungen zur Kontinutat des friihen Prinzipats. Wiesbaden,
1962

Townend, G. ‘Some Flavian connections’, JRS 51 (1961) 54-62
Turner, E. G. ‘Tiberius Julius Alexander’, JRS 44 (1954) 54-64
Urban, R. Der‘ Bataveraufstand’ und die Erhebung des Julius Classicus (Trierer
historische Forschungen 8). Trier, 1985

Wallace, K. G. ‘The Flavii Sabini in Tacitus’, Hist. 36 (1987) 343-58
Wankenne, J. ‘Encore et toujours Néron’, AC 53 (1984) 249-65
Warmington, B. H. Nero: Reality and Legend. London, 1969

Waters, K. H. ‘The character of Domitian’, Phoenix 18 (1964) 49-77

1050

411.

412.
413.

414.

10,

II.

12.

13.

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

D. GOVERNMENT

Weinrib, E. J. ‘The family connections of M. Livius Drusus Libo’,
HSCP 72 (1967) 247-78

Wellesley, K. The Long Year a.p. 69. London, 1975

Wellesley, K. “What happened on the Capitol in December a.p. 69?”,
AA].AH 6 (1981) 166-90

Wilkes, J. J. “A note on the mutiny of the Pannonian legions in a.p. 14’,
CO 56 (1963) 268-71

D. GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

I. THE IMPERIAL COURT

. Alféldi, A. ‘Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells am

romischen Kaiserhofe’, MD_AI(R) 49 (1934) 1-118 (=D 3, 119-276)

. Alfdldi, A. ‘Insignien und Tracht der romischen Kaiser’, MDAI(R) 50

(1935) 3-158 (=D 3, 3-171)

. Alf6ldi, A. Die monarchische Reprasentation im romischen Kaiserreiche. 3rd edn.

Darmstadt, 1970

. Amarelli, F. Consilia Principum. Naples, 1983
. Bang, M. ‘Die Freunde und Begleiter der Kaiser’, in A 30, 1v, 56-76.

Leipzig, 1921

. Boulvert, G. Esclaves et affranchis impériaux sous le haut-empire romain, réle

politique et administratif. Naples, 1970

. Boulvert, G. Domestique et fonctionnaire sous le haut-empire romain: la condition

de laffranchi et de l’esclave. Paris, 1974

. Burton, G. Review of Boulvert 1970 (D 6) and 1974 (D 7), JRS 67 (1977)

162-6

. Chantraine, H. Freigelassene und Sklaven im Dienst der rémischen Kaiser:

Studien zu ihrer Nomenklatur. Wiesbaden, 1967

Crook, J. A. Consilium Principis: Imperial Councils and Counsellors from
Augustus to Diocletian. Cambridge, 1955

Frézouls, E. ‘Les Julio-Claudiens et le Palatium’, in Levy, E. (ed.) Le
systéme palatial en Orient, en Gréce, et a Rome (Actes du colloque de
Strasbourg 19-22 juin 1985) 445—Gz. Leiden, 1987

Herman, G. ‘The “‘friends” of the early hellenistic rulers: servants or
officials’, Talanta 12-13 (1980-1) 103-49

Hirschfeld, O. Die Kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletian. 2nd
edn. Berlin, 1912

Millar, F. ‘Epictetus and the imperial court’, JRS 55 (1965) 141-8
Millar, F. ‘Emperors at work’, JRS 57 (1967) 9-19

Mooren, L. La hiérarchie du cour ptolemaique. Louvain, 1977

Parsi, B. Désignation et Investiture de ? Empereur Romain. Paris, 1963

Pavis d’Escurac, H. ‘La familia Caesaris et les affaires publiques: discretam
dormum et rempublicam in Levy, E. (ed.) Le systéme palatial en Orient, en Gréce,
et a Rome (Actes du colloque de Strasbourg 19-22 juin 1985) 393—qI10.
Leiden, 1987

20.
21.

22.

23.

24.

25.
26.
27.

28.
29.

30.

31.
32.
33:

34.
35.

36.
37-
38.
39-

40.

THE SENATE AND THE EQUITES IO5!

. Rogers, R. S. ‘The emperor’s displeasure — amicitiam renuntiare’, TAP.A
g P P

90 (1959) 224-37

Turcan, R. Vivre a la cour des Césars d’ Auguste a Dioclétien (Coll. études
anciennes 57). Paris, 1987

Wallace-Hadrill, A. ‘Civilis princeps: between citizen and king’, J/RS 72
(1982) 32-48

Weaver, P. R. C. Familia Caesaris. A Social Study of the Emperor’s Freedmen
and Slaves. Cambridge, 1972

2. THE SENATE AND THE EQUITES

Alféldy, G. ‘Die Stellung der Ritter in der Fuhrungsschicht des Imperium
Romanum’, Chiron 11 (1981) 169-215 (= Die rémische Gesellschaft, 162—
207. Stuttgart, 1981)

Bonnefond-Coudry, M. Le sénat de la république romaine de la guerre
@ Hannibal a Auguste: pratiques délibératives et prise de décision (BEF AR 273).
Rome, 1989

Bowersock, G. W. ‘Roman senators from the Near East’, in D 42, 651-68
Brunt, P. A. ‘Princeps and equites’, JRS 73 (1983) 42-75

Brunt, P. A. ‘The role of the senate in the Augustan regime’, CQ 34 (1984)
423-44

Brunt, P. A. ‘The equites in the Late Republic’, in a 11, 144-93

Cadoux, T. J. Review of Vitucci, G. Ricerche sulla Praefectura Vrbi, JRS 49
(1959) 152-6o

Chastagnol, A. ‘Les modes d’accés au sénat romain au début de l’empire.
Remarques 4 propos de la table claudienne de Lyon’, BS NAF (1971)
282-309

Chastagnol, A. ‘La naissance de !’ordo senatorius’, MEFRA 83 (1973)
581-607. (=D $4, 175-98)

Chastagnol, A. ‘Les sénateurs d’origine provinciale sous le régne
d’ Auguste’. Mélanges Boyancé, 163-71. Rome, 1974

Chastagnol, A. ‘“‘Latus clavus” et ‘‘adlectio”; laccés des hommes
nouveaux au sénat romain sous le haut-empire’, RHD 53 (1975) 375-94
(=D 54, 199-27)

Chastagnol, A. ‘Le laticlave de Vespasien’, Hist. 25 (1976) 25 3-6
Chastagnol, A. “La crise de recrutement sénatorial des années 16-11 av. J.-
C.’, Birias Xapw. Miscellanea in onore di Eugenio Manni u, Rome, 1980,
463-76

Demougin, S. ‘Uterque ordo: les rapports entre l’ordre sénatorial et |’ordre
équestre sous les Julio-Claudiens’, in p 42, 73-104

Demougin, S. L’Ordre équestre sous les Julio-Claudiens (Collection de l’école
frangaise de Rome 108). Rome, 1988

Devreker, J. ‘Les orientaux au Sénat romain d’ Auguste 4 Trajan’, Latomus
41 (1982) 495-5 16

Eck, W. ‘Senatorial self-representation: developments in the Augustan
period’, in c 176, 129-67

Eck, W. ‘Die Ausformung der ritterlichen Administration als

1052

4l.
42.

43-

45.

46.
47.
48.
49-
50.
51.
g2.
$3.

54.
55.

56.
57-
59

Go.

62.
63.
64.

65.

D. GOVERNMENT

Antisenatspolitik?’, in Opposition et Résistances (Entretiens Hardt 33) 249-
83. Vandoeuvres, 1986

Ensslin, W. ‘Praefectus Praetorio’, RE xx (1954) 2391-502

Epigrafia e ordine senatorio. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale AIEGL, Roma,
14-20 Maggio 1981 (ed. Panciera, S.). Rome, 1982

Frei-Stolba, R. Untersuchungen zu den Wahlen in der romischen Kaiserzeit.
Zurich, 1967

Halfmann, H. Die Senatoren aus den éstlichen Teilen des Imperium Romanum bis
zum Ende des 2. Jh. n. Chr. (Hypomnemata 58). Gottingen, 1979
Hammond, M. ‘Curatores tabularum publicarum’, in Jones, L. W. (ed.)
Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of E. K. Rand, 123-31. New York,
1938 .
Henderson, M. I. “The establishment of the equester ordo’, JRS 53 (1963)
61-72

Jones, A. H. M. ‘The elections under Augustus’, JRS 45 (1955) 9-21 (=A
47, 27-50)

Laet, S. J. de. De Samenstelling van den romeinschen Senaat gedurende de eerste
Eeuw van het Principaat (28 voér Chr.—68 na Chr.). Antwerp, 1941

Millar, F. ‘Some evidence on the meaning of Tacitus, Annals x11. 60’, Hist.
13 (1964) 180-7

Millar, F. ‘The development of jurisdiction by imperial procurators:
further evidence’, Hist. 14 (1965) 362-7

Morris, J. ‘Leges annales under the Principate, 1. Legal and
constitutional’, LF 87 (1964) 316-37; ‘1. Political effects’, sbid. 88 (1965)
22-31

Nicolet, C. L’Ordre équestre 1-11. Paris, 1966, 1974

Nicolet, C. ‘Le cens sénatorial sous la république et sous Auguste’, JRS 66
(1976) 20-38. (Repr. with revisions in D 54, 143-74)

Nicolet, C. (ed.) Des Ordres a Rome. Paris, 1984

Pavis d’Escurac, H. La Préfecture de l’annone: service administratif impérial
d’ Auguste a Constantin. Rome, 1976

Pflaum, H.-G. Les procurateurs équestres sous le haut-empire romain. Paris,
1950

Pflaum, H.-G. ‘Procurator’, RE xxi (1957) 1240-79

. Pflaum, H.-G. Abrégé des procurateurs équestres. Paris, 1974

Pflaum, H.-G. Les carriéres procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire
Romain. 3 vols. Paris, 1960-1, with Supplément. Paris, 1982

Pistor, H.-H. ‘Prinzeps und Patriziat in der Zeit von Augustus bis
Commodus’. Diss., Freiburg, 1965

. Raepsaet-Charlier, M. T. Prosopographie des femmes de Pordre senatorial.

Louvain, 1987

Saller, R. P. ‘Patronage and promotion in equestrian careers’, JRS 70
(1980) 44-63

Sattler, P. Augustus und der Senat. Untersuchungen zur romischen Innenpolitik
zwischen 30 und 17 v. Chr. Gottingen, 1960

Shatzman, 1. Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics (Coll. Latomus 142).
Brussels, 1975

Sherwin-White, A. N. ‘Procurator Augusti’, PBSR 15 (1939) 11-26

66.
67.

68.

Jo.
71.

72.
73:
74-

75:

79:
80.

81.
82.

83.
84.

85.

86.
87.
88.
89.

go.

PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION 10§3

Stein, A. Der rémische Ritterstand. Munich, 1927

Syme, R. ‘Who was Decidius Saxa?’, JRS 27 (1937) 127-37 (=A 94, 1,
31-41)

Syme, R. ‘Caesar, the senate and Italy’, PBSR 14 (1938) 1-31 (=A 94, I,
88-119)

. Syme, R. ‘Who was Vedius Pollio?’? JRS 51 (1961) 23-30 (=A 94, I,

518-29)

Syme, R. Some Arval Brethren. Oxford, 1980

Syme, R. ‘The sons of Piso the Pontifex’, AJP 101 (1980) 333-41 (=A94,
III, 1226-32)

Syme, R. ‘Clues to testamentary adoption’, Tifuli tv (1984) 397-410 (=A
94, IV, 159-73)

Syme, R. ‘Marriage ages for Roman senators’, Hist. 36 (1987) 318-32 (=A
94, VI, 232-46)

Syme, R. ‘Paullus the censor’, Athenaeum 75 (1987) 7-26 (=A 94, VI,
247-68)

Szramkiewicz, R. Les gouverneurs de province a l époque augustéenne (Etudes
Prosopographiques 11-1v). Paris, 1975 and 1976

. Talbert, R. J. A. ‘Augustus and the senate’, G e R 31 (1984) 55-63
77:
78.

Talbert, R. J. A. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton, 1984

Talbert, R. J. A. ‘Commodus as diplomat in an extract from the acta
senatus’, ZPE 71 (1988) 137-47

Thompson, D. L. ‘The meetings of the Roman senate on the Palatine’,
AJA 85 (1981) 335-9

Wiseman, T. P. ‘The definition of ““Eques Romanus” in the late Republic
and early Empire’, Hist. 19 (1970) 67-83 (=A 109, 57-73)

Wiseman, T. P. New Men in the Roman Senate. Oxford, 1971

Wiseman, T. P. ‘Legendary genealogies in late Republican Rome’, Ge” R

21 (1974) 153-64 (=A 109, 207-18)

3. PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

Abbott, F. F. and Johnson, A. C. Municipal Administration in the Roman
Empire. Princeton, 1926

Badian, E. Publicans and Sinners. Private Enterprise in the Service of the Roman
Republic. Ithaca, 1972

Braunert, H. ‘Der romische Provinzialzensus und der Schatzungsbericht
des Lukas-Evangeliums’, Hist. 6 (1957) 192-214 (= Gesammelte Aufsatge,
213-37)

Brunt, P. A. ‘Chatges of provincial maladministration under the early
Principate’, Hist. 10 (1961) 189-223 (=A 12, ch. 4)

Brunt, P. A. ‘Procuratorial jurisdiction’, Latomus 25 (1966) 461-87 (=A
12, ch. 8

Burton, G. P. ‘Proconsuls, assizes and the administration of justice under
the Empire’, JRS 65 (1975) 92-106

Burton, G. P. ‘The issuing of mandata to proconsuls and a new inscription
from Cos’, ZPE 21 (1976) 63-8

Cardinali, G. ‘Amministrazione territoriale e finanziaria’, inc 12a, 161-94

1054

101.

102.
103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.
II.

112.

113.
114.
115.

D. GOVERNMENT

. Deininger, J. Die Provinziallandtage der rimischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis

zum Ende des dritten Jabrhunderts n. Chr. (Vestigia 6). Munich, 1965

. Galsterer, H. ‘La loi municipale des romains: chimére ou réalitée?? RHD 65

(1987) 181-203

. Isaac, B. “The Decapolis in Syria, a neglected inscription’, ZPE 44 (1981)

67-74

. Jones, A. H. M. The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian. Oxford, 1940
. Jones, A. H. M. ‘Procurators and prefects in the early empire’, in a 47,

115-25

. Jones, A. H. M. Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2nd edn. Oxford,

1971

. Laff, U. Attributio e contributio: problemi del sistema politico-amministrativo

dello stato romano. Pisa, 1966

. Levick, B. M. The Government of the Roman Empire. London, 1985
. Lintott, A. W. Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration. London,

1993

. Millar, F. ‘The emperor, the senate and the provinces’, JRS 56 (1966)

156-66

Millar, F. ‘Empire and city, Augustus to Julian: obligations, excuses, and
status’, JRS 73 (1983) 76-96

Millar, F. ‘State and subject: the impact of monarchy’, in c 176, 37—-Go
Millar, F. ‘‘‘Senatorial provinces’’: an institutionalised ghost’, ANCW 20
(1989) 93-7

Nicolet, C. Tributum: recherches sur la fiscalité directe sous la république romaine.
Bonn, 1976

Norr, D. Imperium und Polis in der hohen Prinzipatszeit (Miinchener Beitrige
zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 50). Munich, 1966:
2nd edn 1969

Norr, D. “Die Stadte des Ostens und das Imperium’, ANRW II, 7.1
(1979) 3-20

Purcell, N. “The arts of Government’, in Boardman, J., Griffin, J. and
Murray, O. The Oxford History of the Classical World, 560-91. Oxford, 1986
Pflaum, H.-G. ‘De nouveau sur les agri decumates 4 la lumiére d’un
fragment de Capoue, CIL x. 3872’, BJ 163 (1963) 224-37
Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament.
Oxford, 1963

Thomasson, B. Latercul: Praesidum 1-11. Gothenburg, 1975-84

Weaver, P. R. C. ‘Freedmen procurators in the imperial administration’,
Hist. 14 (1965) 460-9

4. THEIMPERIAL WEALTH

Bellen, H. ‘Die “‘Verstaatlichung” des Privatermégerns der romischen
Kaiser im I. Jahrhundert n. Chr.’, ANRW II, 1 (1974) 94-112

Bolin, S. State and Currency in the Roman Empire to 300 a.p. Stockholm, 1958
Boulvert, G. ‘Tacite et le fiscus’, RHD 48 (1970) 430-8

Bourne, F. C. The Public Works of the Julio-Claudians and Flavians.
Princeton, 1946

116.

117.

118.

119.
120,
21,
122.
123.

124.

125.

126,
127,
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.

135.

137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.

143.

IMPERIAL WEALTH 10§$5

Brunt, P. A. ‘The fiscus and its development’, JRS 56 (1966) 75-91 (=A
12, ch. 7)

Brunt, P. A. ‘Free labour and public works at Rome’, JRS 70 (1980)
81-100

Brunt, P. A. “The revenues of Rome’, review of Neesen 1980 (p 151), JRS
71 (1981) 161-72 (=A 12, ch. 15)

Brunt, P. A. ‘Publicans in the Principate’, (=in a 12, ch. 17)

Cimma, M. R. Reges socii et amici populi romani. Milan, 1976

Cimma, M. R. Ricerche sulle societa di publicani. Milan, 1981

Corbier, M. L’ Aerarium Saturni et [ Aerarium Militare: administration et
prosopographie sénatoriale. Rome, 1974

Corbier, M. ‘L’aerarium militare’, in Armées et fiscalité dans le monde antique,
197-234. Paris, 1977

Corbier, M. ‘Fiscalité et dépenses locales’, in L’origine des richesses dépensées
dans la ville antique, 219~32. Aix-en-Provence, 1985

Crawford, D. ‘Imperial estates’, in a 27, ch. 3

Crawford, M. H. ‘Money and exchange in the Roman world’, JRS 60
(1970) 40-8

Dodge, H. and Ward-Perkins, B. (eds.) Marble in Antiquity. Collected Papers
of J. B. Ward-Perkins. London, 1992

Frank, T. Economic Survey of Ancient Rome 1-v. Baltimore, 1933-40
Gabrici, E. ‘La monetazione di Augusto’, in c 124 379-404

Garnsey, P., Hopkins, K. and Whittaker, C. R. (eds.) Trade in the Ancient
Economy. Cambridge, 1983

Garzetti, A. ‘Aerarium e fiscus sotto Augusto. Storia di una questione in
parte di nomi’, Athenaeum 31 (Studi Fraccaro) (1953) 298-327
Goodman, M. ‘Nerva, the Fiscus Judaicus, and Jewish Identity’, JRS 79
(1989) 40-4

Hopkins, K. “Taxes and trade in the Roman empire (200 B.C.—A.D. 400)’,
JRS 70 (1980) 101-25

Howgego, C. J. ‘Coinage and military finance: the imperial bronze
coinages of the Augustan east’, NC 142 (1982) 1-20

Howgego, C. J. ‘The supply and use of money in the Roman world 200
B.C. to A.D. 300’, JRS 82 (1992) 1-31

. Jones, A. H. M. ‘The aerarium and the fiscus’, JRS 40 (1950) 22-9 (= 47,

ch. 6)

Jones, A. H. M. ‘Taxation in antiquity’, in a 48

Kloft, H. Liberalitas Principis. Herkunft und Bedeutung. Cologne, 1970
Laet, S. J. de. ‘Note sur l’organisation et la nature juridique de la
“uicesima hereditatum”’’, AC 16 (1947) 29-36

Laet, S. J. de. Portorium. Etude sur organisation douaniére chez les romains
surtout a Pépoque du Haut-Empire. Bruges, 1949

Last, H. M. ‘The Fiscus: a note’, JRS 34 (1944) 51-9

Le Gall, J. ‘Les habitants de Rome et la fiscalité sous le haut-empire’, in
van Effenterre, H. (ed.) Points de vue sur la fiscalité antique (Centre G. Glotz),
113-26. Paris, 1979

Lo Cascio, E. ‘La riforma monetaria di Nerone: l’evidenza dei ripostigli’,
MEFRA 92 (1980) 445-70

1056
144.

145.

146.
147.

148.
149.

150.
151.
152.
153.
154.

155.

1§7-

158.

1§9.
160.

161.
162.

164.
165.

166.

167.

D. GOVERNMENT

Lo Cascio, E. ‘State and coinage in the late republic and early empire’, JRS
71 (1981) 76-86

Lo Cascio, E. ‘La struttura fiscale dell’?impero romano’, in Crawford,
M. H. (ed.) L’smpero romano e le strutture economiche e sociali delle province, 29-
59. Como, 1986

MacMullen, R. “The Roman Emperor’s army costs’, Latomus 43 (1984)
571-80

MacMullen, R. ‘Tax-pressure in the Roman empire’, Latomus 46 (1987)
737754

Millar, F. ‘The fiscus in the first two centuries’, JRS 53 (1963) 29-42
Millar, F. ‘The aerarium and its officials under the empire’, JRS 54 (1964)
33-40

Mitchell, S. ‘Imperial building in the eastern Roman provinces’, in F 479,
18-25

Neesen, L. Untersuchungen zu den direkten Staatsabgaben der romischen
Kaiserzeit (27 v. Chr.—284 n. Chr.). Bonn, 1980

Noé, E. ‘La fortuna privata del Principe e il bilancio dello Stato romano:
alcune riflessioni’, Athenaeum 65 (1987) 27-65

Pflaum, H.-G. ‘Essai sur le Cursus Publicus sous le Haut-Empire romain’,
MAI 14 (1940) 189-390

Rogers, R. S. ‘The Roman emperors as heirs and legatees’, TAPA 78
(1947) 140-58

Rodriguez Alvarez, L. ‘Algunas precisiones in materia de impuestos
indirectos de la época augustea’, RIDA 33 (1986) 189-208

. Thornton, M. K. (ed.) Julio-Claudian Building Programs: A Quantitative

Study in Political Management. Wauconda, 1989
Wesener, G. ‘Uicesima hereditatum’, RE vit, A (1958) 2471-7

5. THE ARMY AND THE NAVY

Adcock, F. E. The Roman Art of War under the Republic. Cambridge, MA,
1940

Alf6ldy, G. Romische Heeresgeschichte. Beitrage 1962-85. Amsterdam, 1987
Bellen, H. Die germanische Leibwache der rémischen Kaiser des julisch-claudischen
Hauses. Wiesbaden, 1981

Birley, E. B. ‘A note on the title Gemina’, J/RS 18 (1928) 56-Go

Birley, E. B. ‘Alae and cohortes milliariae’, in Corolla memoriae Erich
Swobodae dedicata, 54-67. Graz, 1966 (=D 164, 349-64)

. Birley, E. B. “A/ae named after their commanders’, AncSoc 9 (1978) 257-74

(=D 164, 368-84)

Birley, E. B. The Roman Army, Papers 1929-1986. Amsterdam, 1988
Boren, H. C. ‘Studies relating to the stipendium militum’, Hist. 32 (1983)
427-60

Breeze, D. J. “The organisation of the legion: the First Cohort and the
Equites Legionis’, JRS 59 (1969) 50-5

Breeze, D. J. “The career structure below the centurionate during the
Principate’, A4NRW II, 1 (1975) 435-51

168.
169.

170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.

183.
184.

185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.

191.

192.
193.

ARMY AND NAVY 1057

Brisson, J. P. (ed.) Problémes de la guerre a Rome. Paris, 1969

Brunt, P. A. ‘Pay and superannuation in the Roman army’, PBSR 18
(1950) 50-71

Brunt, P. A. ‘The army and the land in the Roman Revolution’, JRS 52
(1962) 69-86 (=A 11 240-80)

Brunt, P. A. ‘Conscription and volunteering in the Roman imperial anny: .
SCI 1 (1974) 90-115 (=A 12, ch. 9 (with 512—13))

Campbell, B. ‘The marriage of soldiers under the Empire’, JRS 68 (1978)
153-66

Campbell, J. B. The Emperor and the Roman Army 31 B.C.—A.D. 235. Oxford,
1984

Cheesman, G. L. The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army. Oxford, 1914
Connolly, P. Greece and Rome at War. London, 1981

Davies, R. W. ‘The daily life of the Roman soldier under the Principate’,
ANRW II, 1 (1974) 299-380

Davies, R. W. Service in the Roman Army (ed. D. J. Breeze and V. A.
Maxfield). Edinburgh, 1989

Devijver, H. ‘Suétone, Claude 25 et les milices équestres’, AncSoc 1 (1970)
69-81

Devijver, H. ‘Equestrian officers from the East’, in Freeman, P. and
Kennedy, D. (eds.) The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East (BAR
International Series 297), 109—225. 2 vols. Oxford, 1986

Devijver, H. The Equestrian Officers of the Roman Army. Amsterdam, 1989
Dobson, B. ‘The centurionate and social mobility’, in Nicolet, C. (ed.)
Recherches sur les structures sociales dans l’antiquité classique, 99-115. Paris,
1970

Dobson, B. ‘The significance of the centurion and “‘primipilaris” in the
Roman army and administration’, ANRW II, 1 (1974) 392-434
Dobson, B. Die Primipilares. Cologne—Bonn, 1978

Domaszewski, A. von Die Rangordnung des rémischen Heeres. Rev. by B.
Dobson. Cologne, 1967

Durry, M. Les cohortes prétoriennes (BEF_AR 146). Paris, 1938

Durry, M. ‘Praetoriae cohortes’, RE xx11 (1954) 1607-34

Echols, E. “The Roman city police: origins and development’, CJ 53
(1957-8) 377-84

Forni, G. I/ reclutamento delle legioni da Augusto a Diocleziano. Milan—Rome,
1953

Forni, G. ‘Estrazione etnica e sociale dei soldati delle legioni nei primi tre
secoli dell’impero’", ANRW II, 1 (1974) 339-91

Freis, H. Die cohortes urbanae (Epigraphische Studien 2). Cologne—Graz,
1967

Gabba, E. ‘Le origini dell’esercito professionale in Roma: i proletari e la
riforma di Mario’, Athenaeum 27 (1949) 173-209 (= ‘The origins of the
Professional Army at Rome: the “‘proletarii””? and Marius’ Reform’, in
Republican Rome: the Army and the Allies, 1-19. Oxford, 1976)

Gilliam, J. F. Rowan Army Papers. Amsterdam, 1986

Harmand, J. L’armée et le soldat a Rome de 107 a yo avant notre ére. Paris, 1967

1058

194.
195.

196.
197.

198.
199.

200.
201.

202.

203.

204.

205.

206.

207.
208.
209.
210.
211.

212.
213.

214.
215.

216.
217.

218.
219.

220.
221.
222.

D. GOVERNMENT

Harmand, J. Une campagne césarienne: Alésia. Paris, 1967

Holder, P. A. Studies in the Auxilia of the Roman Army from Augustus to
Trajan (BAR International Series 70). Oxford, 1980

Ylari, V. Gui Italici nelle strutture militari romane. Milan, 1974

Johnson, A. Roman Forts of the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. in Britain and the
German Provinces. London, 1983

Kennedy, D. L. ‘Some observations on the Praetorian Guard’, AmcSoc 9
(1978) 275-301

Kennedy, D. L. ‘Milliary cohorts: the evidence of Josephus BJ 4.2 (67) and
of epigraphy’, ZPE 50 (1983) 25 3-63

Keppie, L. ‘Vexilla veteranorum’, PBSR 41 (1973) 8-17

Keppie, L. Review of Schneider, H.-C. Das Problem der Veteranenversorgung
(Bonn, 1977), Latomus 40 (1981) 141-3

Keppie, L. The making of the Roman Army: from Republic toEmpire. London,
1984

Keppie, L. ‘Legions in the East from Augustus to Trajan’, in Freeman, P.
and Kennedy, D. (eds.) The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East (BAR
International Series 297), 411-29. 2 vols. Oxford, 1986

Kienast, D. Untersuchungen zu den Kriegsflotten der rimischen Kaiserzeit. Bonn,
1966

Kromayer, J. ‘Die Entwicklung der rdémischen Flotte von
Seerauberkriege des Pompeius bis zur Schlacht von Aktium’, Philologus 56
(1897) 426-91

Kromayer, J. and Veith, G. Heerwesen und Kriegfiihrung der Griechen und
Rémer. Munich, 1928

Kubitschek, W. ‘Legio’, RE xu (1925) 1186-1210

Le Bohec, Y. L’armée romaine sous le Haut-Empire. Paris, 1989

Le Bohec, Y. La Troisiéme Légion Auguste. Paris, 1989

Le Gall, J. ‘Evocatio’, in Mélanges Jacques Heurgon, 519-24. Paris, 1976
Le Glay, M. ‘Le commandement des cohortes voluntariorum de V’armée
romaine’, AncSoc 3 (1972) 209-22

MacMullen, R. ‘The legion as a society’, Hist. 33 (1984) 440-56

Mann, J. C. ‘The raising of new legions during the Principate’, Hermes 91
(1963) 483-9

Mann, J. C. ‘The development of auxiliary and fleet diplomas’, EpStud 9
(1972) 233-41

Mann, J. C. Legionary Recruitment and Veteran Settlement during the Principate
(Univ. London, Inst. Arch. Occasional Papers 7). London, 1983
Maxfield, V. A. The Military Decorations of the Roman Army. London, 1981
Momigliano, A. ‘I problemi delle istituzioni militari di Augusto’, inc 124,
195-215

Pape R. F. ‘The ancient ports of Cumae’, JRS 58 (1968) 152-69
Parker, H. M. D. The Roman Legions. Oxford, 1928. Rev. by G. R. Watson,
1971

Passerini, A. Le coorti pretorie. Rome, 1939

Passerini, A. ‘Legio’, DE 4 (1949) 549-627

Reddé, M. Mare Nostrum (BEF AR 260, Paris, 1986)

223.
224.

225.
226.
227.
228.

229.

230.

231.

232.
233.
234.

235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.

241.
242.

243.

244.
245.
246.
247.

248.

JUSTICE 10§9

Ritterling, E. ‘Legio’, RE x11 (1925) 1211-829

Roxan, M. M. ‘The distribution of Roman military diplomas’, EpStud 12
(1981) 265-86

Royen, R. A. van. ‘Colonia Augusta Praetoria and Augustus’ Cohortes
Praetoriae’, Talanta 5 (1973) 48-71

Saddington, D. B. ‘Prefects and lesser officers in the auxilia at the
beginning of the Roman Empire’, PACA 15 (1980) 20-58

Saddington, D. B. The Development of the Roman Auxiliary Forces from
Caesar to Vespasian (49 B.C.—A.D. 79). Harare, 1982

Saxer, R. Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des rémischen Kaiserheeres von
Augustus bis Diokletian (= EpStud 1). Cologne—Graz, 1967

Schleussner, B. Die Legaten der rémischen Republik. Munich, 1978
Schmitthenner, W. C. G. ‘The armies of the Triumviral period: a study of
the origins of the Roman imperial legions’. D. Phil. thesis, University of
Oxford, 1958

Schneider, H.-C. Das problem der Veteranenversorgung in der spateren rimischen
Republik. Bonn, 1977

Smith, R. E. Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army. Manchester, 1958
Speidel, M. P. ‘The pay of the auxilia’, RS 63 (1973) 141-7 (=D 235, 83-9)
Speidel, M. P. ‘Citizen cohorts in the Roman imperial army’, TAP.A 106
(1976) 339-48 (= D 235, 91-100)

Speidel, M. P. Roman Army Studies 1. Amsterdam, 1984

Speidel, M. P. ‘Germani corporis custodes’, Germania 62 (1984) 31-45
Starr, C. G. The Roman Imperial Navy 31 B.C.—A.D. 324. New York, 1941.
znd edn. Cambridge, 1960

Syme, R. ‘Some notes on the legions under Augustus’, JRS 23 (1933)
14733

Vendrand-Voyer, J. Normes civiques et métier militaire a Rome sous le
Principat, Clermont-Ferrand, 1983

Watson, G. R. The Roman Soldier. 2nd edn. London, 1983

Webster, G. The Roman Imperial Army. 3rd edn. London, 1985
Wierschowski, L. Heer und Wirtschaft. Das romische Heer der Prinzipatszeit
als Wirtschaftsfaktor. Bonn, 1984

6. THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Bauman, R. A. ‘The “leges iudiciorum publicorum” and _ their
interpretation in the Republic, Principate and Later Empire’, ANRW II,
13 (1980) 103-233

Bauman, R. A. ‘Hangman, call a hale!’, Hermes 110 (1982) 102-10
Behrends, O. Die rémische Geschworenenverfassung. Gottingen, 1970
Behrends, O. Review of Jones 1972 (D 264), ZRG 90 (1973) 462-75
Birks, P., Rodger, A. and Richardson, J. S. ‘Further aspects of the Tabula
Contrebiensis, ]RS 74 (1984) 45-73

Bleicken, J. Senatsgericht und Kaisergericht. Eine Studie zur Entwicklung des
Progessrechtes im friiben Prinzipat. (Abh. Ak. Géttingen, phil.-hist. Klasse,
ser. 3, §3) Gottingen, 1962

1060
249.
250.

251.
252.

253.
254.

255-
256.
257.

258.

. 2§9-

260.

261.
262.
263.
264.

265.
266.
267.
268.

269.

270.
271.

272.
273.
274.
275.
276.

277.
278.

D. GOVERNMENT

Bringmann, K. ‘Zur Gerichtsreform des Kaisers Augustus’, Chiron 3
(1973) 235-44

Brunt, P. A. Review of Kunkel 1962 (p 268) RHD 32 (1964) 440-9
Brunt, P. A. Review of Jones 1972 (p 264), CR 88 (1974) 265-7

Buti, I. ‘La “Cognitio extra Ordinem”: Da Augusto a Diocleziano’,
ANRYW II, 14 (1982) 29-59

Cuq, E. Manuel des institutions juridiques des Romains. 2nd edn. Paris, 1928
Frezza, P. ‘Storia del processo civile in Roma fino all’eta di Augusto’,
ANRW I, 2 (1972) 163-96

Galsterer, H. Review of Behrends, 1970 (D 245), GG.A 225 (1973) 29-46
Galsterer, H. Review of Simshauser 1973 (D 275), GGA 229 (1977) 64-81
Garnsey, P. D. A. ‘The /ex Iulia and appeal under the empire’, JRS 56
(1966) 167-89

Garnsey, P. D. A. ‘Adultery trials and the survival of the quaestiones in the
Severan age’, JRS 57 (1967) 56—Go

Garnsey, P. D. A. ‘Thecriminal jurisdiction of governors’, JRS 58 (1968)

sI-9

Greenidge, A. H. J. The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time. London, 1901
Guarino, A. ‘La formazione dell’editto perpetuo’", ANRW II, 13 (1980)
62-102

Jones, A. H. M. ‘“TI appeal unto Caesar”’, Studies D. M. Robinson 11, 918—
30. Saint Louis, MS, 1953 (=A 47, $ 1-65)

Jones, A. H. M. ‘Imperial and senatorial jurisdiction in the early
Principate’, Hist. 3 (1955) 464-88. (=A 47, 67~98)

Jones, A. H. M. The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate.
Oxford, 1972

Kelly, J. M. Princeps Iudex. Weimar, 1957

Kelly, J. M. Roman Litigation. Oxford, 1966

Kelly, J. M. Studies in the Civil Judicature of the Roman Republic. Oxford, 1976
Kunkel, W. ‘Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des rdémischen
Kriminalverfahrens in vorsullanischer Zeit’, ABAW 56 (1962)

Kunkel, W. ‘Ober die Entstehung des Senatsgerichts’, SBA W (1969) no. 2
(= Kleine Schriften (1974) 267-323)

Laff, U. ‘La lex Rubria de Gallia Cisalpina’, Athenaeum 64 (1986) 5-44
Lintott, A. W. ‘Provocatio. From the struggle of the orders to the
principate’, ANRW I, 2 (1972) 226-7

Luzzatto, G. 1. La procedura civile romana 1-111. Bologna, 1946-50
Mommsen, T. Rémisches Strafrecht. Berlin, 1899

Polay, E. ‘Der Kodifizierungsplan des Julius Caesar’, Iura 16 (1965) 27-51
Simshdauser, W. Iuridici und Munizipalgerichtsbarkeit in Italien. Munich, 1973
Stroux, J. ‘Eine Gerichtsreform des Kaisers Claudius (BGU 611)’ JAW 8
(1929)

Torrent, A. La ‘Iurisdictio’ de los Magistrados Municipales. Salamanca, 1970
Wolff, H.-J. ‘R6misches Provinzialrecht in der Provinz Arabia’, ANRW
II, 13 (1980) 763-806

10.

Il.

12.
13.

14.

15.
16,

17.

18.

19.
20.

21.
22.

23.
24.

ITALY 1061

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

1. ITALY

. Ampolo, C. Review of Torelli, M. Lavinio e Roma (Rome, 1984), CR 38

(1988) 117-20
Anderson, J. C. The Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora (Coll.
Latomus 182). Brussels, 1984

. Bermond Montanari, G. ‘Monumenti funerari atestini’, RIA 8 (1959)

IL1—40
Bleicken, J. ‘Vici magister’, RE 2, vim (1958) 2480-3

. Boatwright, M. T. ‘The pomerial extension of Augustus’, Hist. 35 (1986)

13-27

Boethius, A. Keview of Shipley, F. W. Agrippa’s Building Activities in
Rome (St Louis, 1933), Athenaeum 12 (1934) 431-5

Bonjour, M. Terre natale. Etudes sur une composante effective du patriotisme
romain. Paris, 1975

Boyancé, P. ‘Properce aux fétes de quartier’, REA 52 (1950) 64—-71

. Braunert, H. ‘Verfassungsnorm und Verfassungswirklichkeit im

spatrepublikanischen Rom’, AU 9 (1966) 51-73

Briquel, D. ‘Le temoignage de Claude sur Mastarna/Servius Tullius’,
RBPhd 68 (1990), 86—108

Carettoni, G., Colini, A. M., Cozza, L. and Gatti, G. La pianta marmorea
di Roma antica. Rome, 1960

Castrén, P. Ordo Populusque Pompeianus. Rome, 1975

Castrén, P. ‘Cambiamenti nel gruppo dei notabili municipali dell’Italia
centro-meridionale nel corso del I secolo a.C.’, in E 77, 91-7

Cébeillac Gervasoni, M. ‘Problématique de la promotion politique pour
les notables des cités du Latium 4 la fin de la République’, Ktema 3 (1978)
227-42

Chevallier, R. La romanisation de la Celtique du Pé (BEF AR 249). Rome,
1983

Ciampoltrini, G. ‘Note sulla colonizzazione augustea nell’Etruria
settentrionale’, SCO 31 (1981) 41-55

La citta nel? Italia settentrionale in eta romana. Morfologia, strutture e funzioni
dei centri urbani delle Regiones X e XI (Collection de l’école frangaise de
Rome 130) Trieste-Rome, 1990

Coarelli, F. ‘Il Vallo di Diano in eta romana. I dati dell’archeologia’, in
D’ Agostino, B. (ed.) Storia del Vallo di Diano I, 217-77. Salerno, 1981
Coarelli, F. I/ Foro Romano. 2 vols. Rome, 1983-5

Coarelli, F. Roma (Guide archeologiche Laterza). 3rd edn. Rome and
Bari, 1985

Coarelli, F. I/ Foro Boario. Rome, 1988

Coleman, R. G. ‘The central Italic languages in the period of Roman
expansion’, TransPhilSoc (1986) 100-31

Conway, R. S. The Italic Dialects 11. Cambridge, 1897

Cornell, T. J. ‘Etruscan historiography’, ASNP 3, 6 (1976) 411-39

1062

25.
26.
27.

32.
33-
34.
35-
36.
37°
38.
39-

40.

42.

43-
. Gabba, E. ‘Urbanizzazione e rinnovamenti urbanistici nell’Italia centro-

45-
46.

47-
48.

49-

50.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Cornell, T. J. ‘Principes of Tarquinia’, JRS 68 (1978) 167-73
Crawford, M. H. ‘Italy and Rome’, JRS 71 (1981) 153—-Go

Crawford, M. H. ‘Early Rome and Italy’, in Boardman, J., Griffin, J. and
Murray, O. (eds.) The Oxford History of the Classical World ch. 17. Oxford,
1986

. Crawford, M. H. ‘Ateste and Rome’, OTie 18 (1989) 191-200
. Crawford, M. H. ‘Rome and Italy after the Social War’, forthcoming
. D’Arms, ). H. Romans on the Bay of Naples. A Social and Cultural Study of the

Villas and their Owners from 150 B.C. to A.D. goo. Cambridge, MA, 1970

. D’Arms, J. H. ‘Upper-class attitudes towards wiri municipales and their

towns in the early Roman Empire’, Athenaeum 62 (1984) 440-67
David, J.-M. ‘Les orateurs des municipes 4 Rome: intégration, réticences
et snobismes’, in E 77, 309-23

Deininger, J. ‘Brot und Spiele; Tacitus und die Entpolitisierung der plebs
urbana’, Gymn. 86 (1979) 278-803

Demougin, S. ‘Notables municipaux et ordre équestre 4 l’€poque des
derniéres guerres civiles’, in E 77, 279-98

Devijver, H. and Wonterghem, F. van. ‘Il campus nell’impianto
urbanistico delle citta romane’, ActaArchLov 20 (1981) 33; 21 (1982) 93
Dumont, J. C. ‘Les gens de théatre originaires des municipes’, in E 77,
333-45

Duthoy, R. ‘Les Augustales’, ANRW II, 16.2 (1978) 1254-309, esp.
1293-306

Eck, W. Die staatliche Organisation Italiens in der hohen Kaiserzeit (Vestigia
28). Munich, 1979

Emiliozzi, A. ‘Sull’epitaffio del 67 a.C. nel sepolcro dei Salvii a Ferento’,
MEFRA 93 (1983) 701-17

Franciscis, A. de. ‘Sculture connesse con la scuola medica di Elea’, PP 25
(1970) 267-84

. Frederiksen, M. W. ‘Republican Capua. A social and economic study’,

PBSR 27 (1959) 80-130

Frederiksen, M. W. ‘Changes in the pattern of settlement’, in £ 141, 11,
341-55

Frederiksen, M. W. Campania. London, 1984

meridionale del I sec. a.C.’, SCO 21 (1972) 73-112

Gabba. E. ‘Il problema dell’ “‘unita”’ dell’Italia romana’, in Campanile, E.
(ed.) La cultura italica. 11-27. Pisa, 1978

Gabba, E. ‘Proposta per l’elogio tarquiniese de Velthur Spurinna’, OTic
8 (1979) 143

Gabba, E. ‘La rifondazione di Salapia’, Athenaeum 61 (1983) 514-16
Gabba, E. ‘Ticinum: dalle origini alla fine del III sec. d.C.’, in Gabba, E.
(ed.) Storia di Pavia 1, 205-47. Pavia, 1984

Gabba, E. ‘Le citta italiche del I sec. a.C. e la politica’, RST 98 (1986)
653-63

Gaggiotti, M. ef al. Umbria Marche (Guide Archeologiche Laterza.) Bari,
1980

51.
52.

$3.
$4.

55-
. Harris, W. V. ‘The era of Patavium’, ZPE 27 (1977) 283

57:
58.

59-

64.
65.
66.

67.

68.
69.
70.

71.
72.

73.

74-
75:

76.

77-

ITALY 1063

Vacat

Galsterer, H. Herrschaft und Verwaltung im republikanischen Italien.
Munich, 1976

Gely, E. ‘Terra patria et societas hominum’, REL 52 (1974) 149-67
Hammond, M. ‘Germana patria’, HSCP 60 (1951) 147-74

Harris, W. V. Rome in Etruria and Umbria. Oxford, 1971

Harvey, P. B. ‘Socer Valgus, Valgiiand C. Quinctius Valgus’, in Borza, E.
N. and Carrubba, R. W. (eds.) Classics and the Classical Tradition. Essays
presented to R. E. Dengler, 79-94. Pennsylvania State University, 1973
Hauber, R. C. ‘Zur Topographie der Horti Maecenatis und der Horti
Lamiani auf dem Esquilin in Rom’, Ké/ner Jabrbiicher 73 (1990) 11-107
Heurgon, J. ‘La vocation étruscologique de l’empereur Claude’, CR.AI

1953, 92

. Homo, L. Rome impériale et Purbanisme dans [antiquité. Paris, 1971
61.
62.
63.

Humbert, M. ‘Municipium’ et ‘civitas sine suffragio’. Rome, 1978
Jongman, W. The Economy and Society of Pompeii. Amsterdam, 1988
Jordan, H. and Hiilsen, G. Topographie der Stadt Rom im Alterthum. 2 vols.
Berlin, 1878-1907

Kaimio, J. “The ousting of Etruscan by Latin in Etruria’, in Bruun, P. e¢
al. Studies in the Romanisation of Etruria, 85-245. Rome, 1975

Keppie, L. Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy, 47-14 B.c. London,
1983

Keppie, L. ‘Colonisation and veteran settlement in Italy in the first
century A.D.’, PBSR 39 (1984) 77-114

Keuls, E. C. ‘Aspetti religiosi della Magna Grecia nell’eta romana’, in La
Magna Grecia nell eta romana. Atti del quindicesimo Convegno di Studi sulla
Magna Grecia, 439-58. Naples, 1976

Labrousse, M. ‘Le pomerium de la Rome impériale’, MEFRA 54 (1937)
165-99

Laff, U. ‘La /ex aedis Furfensis’, in Campanile, E. (ed.) La cultura italica,
121-44. Pisa, 1978

Lampe, P. Die stadtromischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten:
Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte. 2nd edn. Tibingen, 1989

Lanciani, R. The Destruction of Ancient Rome. London, 1906

Lavizzari Pedrazzini, M. P. Ceramica romana di tradizione ellenistica in Italia
settentrionale. I! vasellame ‘tipo Aco’. Florence, 1987

Le Gall, J. Le Tibre, fleuve de Rome, dans Pantiquité. Paris, 1953

Lejeune, M. L’anthroponymie osque. Paris, 1976

Lepore, E. ‘Geografia del modo di produzione schiavistica e modi residui
in Italia meridionale’, in Giardina, A. and Schiavone, A. (eds.) Societa
romana e produzione schiavistica 1, 79-85. Bari, 1981

Lepore, E. ‘Roma ele citta greche 0 ellenizzate nell’Italia meridionale’, in
E77, 347-54

Les bourgeoisies municipales italiennes aux II* et I? siécles av. J.-C. (Colloques
internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique n. 609).
Paris—Naples, 1983

1064

78.

79:

80.

81.
82.

83.
84.
85.

86.

89.
go.

91.

92.
93-

94.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Linderski, J. ‘Natalis Patavii’, ZPE 50 (1983) 227-32

Lo Cascio, E. ‘I greges oviarici dell’iscrizione di Sepino’, in Scritti offerti a
Ettore Paratore ottuagenario (= Abruzzo 23-8 (1985-90) 557-69)

Lugli, G. I monumenti antichi di Roma e suburbio. 3 vols. Rome, 1931-40
Lugli, G. Roma antica: Il centro monumentale. Rome, 1946

Lugli, G. Fontes ad Topographiam veteris urbis Romae pertinentes Vols. 1-vi1.
Rome, 1952; Vols. vit, x1x-xx. Rome, 1962

Martino, F. de ‘Note sull’Italia augustea’, Athenaeum 53 (1975) 245-61
Meiggs, R. Roman Ostia. 2nd edn. Oxford, 1973

Moreau, P. ‘Structures de parenté et d’alliance 4 Larinum’, in E 77,
99-123

Nash, E. Biél/dlexicon zur Topographie des antiken Rom. 2 vols. Tibingen,
1961~—2. Translated as E 87

. Nash, E. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome. 2nd edn. London, 1968
88.

Pais, E. ‘Cittadinanza romana e cittadinanza attica’, in Dalle guerre puniche
a Cesare Augusto I, 349-61. Rome, 1918

Panciera, S. ‘Tra epigrafia e topografia — I’, ArchClass 22 (1970) 131-63
Panciera, S. ‘Nuovi luoghi di culto a Roma dalle testimonianze
epigrafiche’, ArchLaz 3 (1980) 202-13

Panciera, S. ‘In operis publicis esse’, in Broilo, F. (ed.) Xenia: Scritti in
onore P. Treves, 129. Rome, 1985

Panciera, S. ‘Ancora tra epigrafia e topografia’, L’urbs (1987) 61-86
Panciera, S. ‘Due nuovi frammenti di calendario romano’, Arch Class 25]
26 (1973/1974) 481-90

Picard, G. C. Rome et les villes d’ Italie des Gracques a la mort d’ Auguste. Pais,
1978

. Platner, S. and Ashby, T. A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome.

Oxford—London, 1929

. Poccetti, P. ‘Romanie Italici a Delo’, Athenaeum 62 (1984) 646-56
. Poccetti, P. “Per una definizione delle iscrizioni “bilingui” in area etrusca

ed italica’, in Campanile, E. et a/. (eds.) Bilinguismo e biculturalismo nel mondo
antico, 127. Pisa, 1988

. Potter, T. W. Roman Italy. London, 1986
. Prontera, F. ‘L’Italia meridionale di Strabone. Appunti tra geografia e

storia’, in Maddoli, G. (ed.) Strabone e I’ Italia antica 93-109. Naples, 1988
Prosdocimi, A. ‘Contatti e conflitti di lingue nell’Italia antica: l’elemento
greco’, in Popoli e civilta dell’ Italia antica V1, 1029-88. Rome, 1978
Pucci, G. ‘La ceramica italica’, in Giardina, A. and Schiavone A. (eds.)
Societd romana e produzione schiavistica 1, 99-121. 1981

Purcell, N. ‘The city of Rome and the Plebs Urbana in the late Republic’,
in CAH 1x?, 644-88. Cambridge, 1994

Purcell, N. ‘The capital of Italy and the world: Rome from Vespasian to
Constantine’, in CAH x12. Forthcoming

Rainbird, J. S. ‘The fire stations of Imperial Rome’, PBSR54 (1986)
147-69

Ramage, C. T. The Nooks and Byways of Italy. Wanderings in Search of Its
Ancient Remains and Modern Superstitions. Liverpool, 1868

106.

107.
108.
109.
110.
111.

112.
113.

114.

115.

116.

117.
118.

119.
120.
121.

122,
123.

124.
125.
126.

127.

128.
129.

130.
131.

132.

ITALY 1065

Rawson, E. D. ‘Caesar, Etruria and the disciplina Etrusca’, JRS 68 (1978)
132-52

Rawson, E. D. ‘Cicero and the Areopagus’, Athenaeum 63 (1985) 44-67
Reynolds, P. K. B. The Vigiles of Imperial Rome. Oxford, 1926
Rickman, G. The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome. Oxford, 1980

Robinson, O. ‘The water supply of Rome’, SDHI 46 (1980) 44-86
Rodriguez Almeida, E. Forma Urbis Marmorea. Aggiornamento generale
1980. Rome, 1980

Roma, Archeologia nel centro urbano 1-1. Rome, 1985-6

Roma Capitale 1870-1911. L’archeologia di Roma Capitale tra sterro e scavo.
Exhibition Catalogue, 1983

La romanizzazione della Basilicata. Forthcoming

Rossignani, M. P. ‘Gli edifici pubblici nell’Italia settentrionale fra 1’89
a.C. e Peta augustea’, in La citta nell Italia settentrionale, 305-39. Trieste—
Rome, 1990

Sablayrolles, R. ‘Espace urbain et propagande politique: l’organisation
du centre de Rome par Auguste (Res Gestae 19 4 21)’, Pallas 28 (1981)
59-77

Sachers, E. ‘Praefectus urbi’, RE xxu (1954) 2502-34

Sartori, F. ‘Le citta italiote dopo la conquista romana’, in La Magna Grecia
nel? eta romana. Atti del quindicesimo Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia.
83-137. Naples, 1976

Sena Chiesa, G. ‘Frammenti con fregio dorico al Museo Archeologico di
Milano’, in Scritti G. Massari Gaballo and U. T. Pollini, 131-40. Milan,
1986

Sensi, L. ‘Assisi: aspetti prosopografici’, in E 77, 165-73

Simone, C. de ‘Italien’, in Neumann, G. and Untermann, J. (eds.) Die
Sprachen im romischen Reich der Kaiserzeit, 65-81. Bonn, 1980

‘Sommella, P. Italia antica. L’urbanistica romana. Rome, 1987

Studi Lunensi e prospettive sul? Occidente romano (Atti del Conv. di Lerici). La
Spezia, 1987

Susini, G. ‘I profughi della Sabatina’, Convegno in memoria di Plinio
Fraccaro, 172-6. Pavia, 1976

Tagliaferri, A. Colonie legionari romani nel Friuli celtico. Pordenone, 1986
Tchernia, A. Le vin de I’ Italie romaine. Rome, 1986

Thomsen, R. The Italic Regions from Augustus to the Lombard Invasion.
Copenhagen, 1947

Tibiletti, G. ‘Italia Augustea’, Mé/anges J. Carcopino, 917—26. Paris, 1966
Torelli, M. ‘Monumenti funerari romani con fregio dorico’, DArch 2
(1969) 1, 32-54

Torelli, M. ‘La situazione in Etruria’, in £ 141, 1, 97-109

Torelli, M. ‘Una nuova epigrafe di Bantia e la cronologia dello statuto
municipale bantino’, Athenaeum 61 (1983) 252-7

Torelli, M. ‘Gesellschaft und Wirtschaftsformen der augusteischen Zeit:
der Consensus Italiae’, in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik, 23-48.
Berlin, 1984

1066
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.

139.
140.

141.
142.

143.
144.
145-
146.

147-
148.
149.
150.
151.

152.
153.

154.
155.
156.
157.

158.
159.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Torelli, M. ‘‘‘Tribuni Plebis” municipali?’, in Sodalitas: seritti in onore di
Antonio Guarino 11, 1397-402. Naples, 1984

Toynbee, J. and Ward Perkins, J. The Shrine of St Peter and the Vatican
Excavations. London, 1956

Visscher, F. de Le droit des tombeaux romains. Milan, 1963

Vitucci, G. Ricerche sulla praefectura urbi in eta imperiale. Rome, 1956
Wiseman, T. P. ‘The census in the first century B.c.’, JRS 59 (1969) 59-75
Wiseman, T. P. ‘Domi nobiles and the Roman cultural élite’, in E 77,
299-397

Wiseman, T. P. Catullus and his World. Cambridge, 1985

Wiseman, T. P. ‘Reading the city: history, poetry and the topography of
Rome’, ACT] 2 (1987) 3-6

Zanker, P. (ed.) Hellenismus in Mittelitalien. Gottingen, 1976

Zevi, F. ‘Monumentieaspetti culturali di Ostia repubblicana’, in £ 141, 1,
52-63

2. SICILY, SARDINIA AND CORSICA

Acquaro, E., Barreca, F., Gecchini, S. M., Fantar, D. and M., Guzzo
Amadasi, M. G. and Moscati, S. Ricerche Puniche ad Antas. Rome, 1969
Angiolillo, S. L’arte della Sardegna romana. Milan, 1987

Ascari, M. C. La Corsica nelf antichita. Rome, 1942

Balmuth, M. S. and Rowland, R. J. Jr. (eds.) Studies in Sardinian
Archaeology 1. Ann Arbor, 1984

Bejor, G. ‘Ricerche di topografia e di archeologia romana nella Sicilia
sud-occidentale’, Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa $ (1975)
127§-1303

Bejor, G. ‘Aspetti della romanizzazione della Sicilia’, in Forme di contattoe
processi di trasformazione nelle societa antiche (Atti Convegno di Cortona,
1981) 354-74. Pisa-Rome, 1983

Beloch, K. J. ‘La popolazione antica della Sicilia’, ASS 14 (1889) 1-83
Belvedere, O. ‘Opere pubbliche ed edifici per lo spettacolo nella Sicilia di
eta imperiale’, ANRW II, 11,1 (1988) 346-413

Boninu, A., Le Glay, M. and Mastino, A. Turris Libisonis Colonia Iulia.
Sassari, 1984

Bouchier, E. S. Sardinia in Ancient Times. Oxford, 1917

Brown, P. J. ‘Malaria in Nuragic, Punic and Roman Sardinia: some
hypotheses’, in E 146, 209-35

Clemente, G. ‘La Sicilia nell’eta imperiale’, in Gabba, E. and Vallet, G.
(eds.) Sicilia Antica u, 463-80. Naples, 1980

Clemente, G. ‘Considerazioni sulla Sicilia nell’impero romano (III sec.
a.C.—V sec. d.C.)’, Kokalos 26-7 (1980-1) 192-219

Cuntz, O. ‘Zur Geschichte Siciliens in der casarisch-augusteischen
Epoche’, Klio 6 (1906) 466-76

Dyson, S. L. The Creation of the Roman Frontier. Princeton, 1985

Finley, M. I. Ancient Sicily. 2nd edn. London, 1979

Fraschetti, A. ‘Per una prosopografia dello sfruttamento: romani e italici

160.

161.
162.

163.
164.

166.
167.

168.

170.
171.
172.

173.
174.

175.
176.

177.
178.
179.
180.
181.

182.
183.

SICILY, SARDINIA AND CORSICA 1067

in Sicilia (212-44 a.C.)’, in Giardina, A. and Schiavone, A. (eds.) Societa
romana e produzione schiavistica: L’ Italia: insediamenti e forme economiche, 5 1—
77. Bari, 1981

Gabba, E. ‘La Sicilia romana’, in Crawford, M. H. (ed.) L’Impero Romano
e le strutture economiche e sociali delle province (Biblioteca di Athenaeum 4).
Como, 1986

Goldsberry, M. Sicily and its Cities in Hellenistic and Roman Times. (Diss.,
Chapel Hill (Univ. of N. Carolina) 1973) Ann Arbor, 1982

Guzzo Amadasi, M. G. Iscrizioni fenicie e puniche delle colonie in Occidente.
Rome, 1967

Holm, A. Geschichte Siziliens im Alterthum 11. Leipzig, 1878

Jéhasse, J. ‘La Corse antique d’aprés Ptolemée’, Archeologia Corsa. Etudes
et Memoires 1. Ajaccio, 1976

. Jéhasse, J. and L. ‘La Corse romaine’, in Arrighi, P. (ed.) Histoire de la

Corse, 97-128. Toulouse, 1971

Jéhasse, J. and L. Aléria antique. Aléria, 1982

Kahrstedt, U. ‘Die Gemeinden Siziliens in der R6merzeit’, K/io 35 (1942)
246-67

Maetzke, G. ‘Architettura romana in Sardegna’, Atti del XIII Congresso di
Storia del? Architettura, 155-69. Rome, 1966

. Manganaro, G. ‘Per una storia della Sicilia romana’, ANRW I, 1 (1972)

442-61

Manganaro, G. ‘La provincia romana’, in Gabba, E. and Vallet, G. (eds.)
La Sicilia Antica Il, 411-61. Naples, 1980

Manganaro, G. ‘I senatori di Sicilia e il problema del latifondo’, Epigrafia
e ordine senatorio II (= Tituli 5, 1982), 369-85
Manganaro, G. ‘La Sicilia da Sesto Pompeio a Diocletiano’, ANRW II,
11, 1 (1988) 3-89

Manni, E. Geografia fisica e politica della Sicilia antica. Rome, 1981
Meloni, P. L’amministrazione della Sardegna da Augusto all invasione
vandalica. Rome, 1958

Meloni, P. La Sardegna romana. Sassari, 1975

Michon, E. ‘Administration de la Corse sous la dominion romaine’,
MEFRA 8 (1888) 411-25

Moracchini-Mazel, G. Les Fouilles de Mariana (Corse). 1. La nécropole de
Palazzetto-Murotondo (= Cahiers Corsica 4-7). Bastia, 1971
Moracchini-Mazel, G. Les Foutlles de Mariana (Corse). 6. La nécropole fi
ponti (= Cahiers Corsica 37-9). Bastia, 1974

Pace, B. Arte e civilta della Sicilia antica. 4 vols. Rome—Naples, 1936-49.
2nd edn. vol. 1, 1958

Pais, E. ‘Alcune osservazioni sulla storia e sulla amministrazione della
Sicilia durante il dominio romano’, ASS 13 (1888) 113-256

Pais, E. Storia della Sardegna e della Corsica durante il dominio romano. Rome,
1923

Rowland, R. J. Jr. I ritrovamenti romani in Sardegna. Rome, 1981
Rowland, R. J. Jr. “The case of the missing Sardinian grain’, AncW to. 1—
2 (1984) 45-8

1068

184.

185.

186.
187.
188.
189.

190.

191.
192.

193.

194.

195.

196.

197.

198.
199.

200.
201.
202.
203.

204.

205.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Rowland, R. J. Jr. ‘The countryside of Roman Sardinia’, in E 146,
285-300

Rowland, R. J. Jr. ‘The Roman invasion of Sardinia’, in Malone, C. and
Stoddart, S. (eds.) Papers in Italian Archaeology 1v.iv, 99-117. Oxford,
1985

Sartori, F. ‘Appunti di storia siceliota: la costituzione di Tauromenio’,
Athenaeum 32 (1954) 356-83

Scramuzza, V. M. ‘Roman Sicily’, in p 128, 111, 225-377

Stone, S.C. ‘Sextus Pompey, Octavian and Sicily’, AJA 87 (1983) 11-22
Tarn, W. W. ‘Sicily and the end of Sextus Pompeius’, CAH x}, 55-62.
Cambridge, 1934

Thomasson, B. E. ‘Zur Verwaltungsgeschichte der Provinz Sardinia’,
Eranos Jo (1972) 72-81

Tronchetti, C. ‘The cities of Roman Sardinia’, in E 146, 237-83
Vismara Pergola, C. ‘Prima miscellanea sulla Corsica romana’, MEFRA
92 (1980) 303-28

Wilson, R. J. A. ‘Sardinia and Sicily during the Roman Empire: aspects
of the archaeological evidence’, Kokalos 26-7 (1980-1) 219-42

Wilson, R. J. A. ‘Changes in the pattern of urban settlement in Roman,
Byzantine and Arab Sicily’, in Malone, C. and Stoddart, S. (eds.) Papers in
Italian Archaeology 1v.i, 313-44. Oxford, 1985

Wilson, R. J. A. ‘Un insediamento agricolo romano a Castagna (Comune
di Cattolica Eraclea)’, Sicilia Archeologia xviii, 57-8 (1985) 11-35
Wilson, R. J. A. “Towns of Sicily during the Roman Empire’, ANRW
II, 11, 1 (1988) 90-206

Wilson, R. J. A. Sicily under the Roman Empire: the Archaeology of a Roman
Province 36 B.C.—A.D. 535. Warminster, 1990

3. SPAIN

Albertini, E. Les divisions administratives de ? Espagne romaine. Paris, 1923
Albertos Firmat, M. L. La onomdstica personal primitiva de Hispania
Tarraconense y Bética. Salamanca, 1966

Albertos Firmat, M. L. Organizaciones suprafamiliares en la Hispania antigua.
Valladolid, 1975. — 11: BSE.AA 47 (1981) 208-14

Alféldy, G. Fasti Hispanienses. Senatorische Reichsbeamte und Offiziere in den
spanischen Provinzen des romischen Reiches von Augustus bis Diokletian.
Wiesbaden, 1969

Alféldy, G. ‘Tarraco’, RE Suppl. xv (1978) 570-644

Alféldy, G. ‘Zur Geschichte von Asturia et Callaecia’, Germania 61 (1983)
g 11-28

Alféldy, G. ‘Drei stadtische Eliten im rémischen Hispanien’, Gerién 2
(1984) 193-238 (=éd. Die rémische Gesellschaft (HABES 1), 239-84.
Stuttgart, 1986)

Alféldy, G. Rémisches Stadtewesen auf der neukastilischen Hochebene. Ein
Testfall fiir die Romanisierung (Abh. Heidelberger Akad. Wiss., phil.-hist.
KI., 1987, 3. Abh.). Heidelberg, 1987

206.

207.

208.

209.

210.

2il.
212.

213.

214.

215.

216.

217.

218.

219.

220.

221.

222.

223.

224.

225.

226.

227.

SPAIN 1069

Blazquez, J. M. ‘Estado de la romanizacién de Hispania bajo César y
Augusto’, Emerita 30 (1962) 71-129

Blazquez (Martinez), J. M. Religiones primitivas de Hispania 1. Fuentes
literarias y epigraficas. Madrid, 1962

Blazquez (Martinez), J. M. Ciclos y temas de la Historia de Esparia: la
Romanizacion. 1. La Sociedad y la Economia en la Hispania Romana. Madrid,
1975

Blazquez (Martinez), J. M. Economia de la Hispania romana. Bilbao, 1978
Blazquez (Martinez), J. M. e¢ a/. Historia de Espatia antigua 11. Hispania
romana. Madrid, 1982

Brancati, A. Augusto e la guerra di Spagna. Urbino, 1963

Broughton, T. R. S. ‘The Romanization of Spain. The problem and the
evidence’, PAPAS 103 (1959) 645-51

Castillo Garcia, C. ‘Stadte und Personen der Baetica’, ANRW II, 3, 601—
54. Berlin—New York, 1975

Castillo Garcia, C. ‘Los senadores béticos. Relaciones familiares y
sociales’, Epigrafia e ordine senatorio I (Tituli 5), 465-519. Rome, 1982
Diego Santos, F. ‘Die Integration Nord- und Nordwestspaniens als
rémische Provinz in der Reichspolitik des Augustus’, ANRIW II, 3
(1975) 523-71

Domergue, C. Les mines de la péninsule ibérique dans [antiquité romaine.
Rome, 1990

Etienne, R. Le culte impérial dans la péninsule ibérique & Auguste a Dioclétien.
Paris, 1958

Etienne, R. ‘Sénateurs originaires de la province de Lusitanie’, Epigrafia e
ordine senatorio II (Tituli 5), 521-9. Rome, 1982

Fabre, G., Mayer, M. and Roda, I. ‘A propos du pont de Martorell: la
participation de l’armée 4 l’aménagement du réseau routier de la
Tarraconnaise orientale sous Auguste’, Epigraphie hispanique, 282-8.
Paris, 1984

Fishwick, D. ‘The altar of Augustus and the municipal cult of Tarraco’,
MDAI(M) 23 (1982) 222-33

Galsterer, H. Untersuchungen zum rimischen Stadtewesen auf der Iberischen
Halbinsel ( Madrider Forschungen 8). Berlin, 1971

Galsterer, H. ‘Bemerkungen zur _ Integration vorrémischer
Bevolkerungen auf der Iberischen Halbinsel’, Actas del II Coloquio sobre
lenguas y culturas prerromanas de la Peninsula ibérica, 453-64. Salamanca,
1979

Garcia y Bellido, A. ‘Las colonias romanas de Hispania’, AHDE 29
(1959) 447-517

Garcia y Bellido, A. ‘Die Latinisierung Hispaniens’, ANRW I, (1972)
462-500 (cf. id. AEA 40 (1967) 3-29)

Gonzalez Rodriguez, M?. Cruz Las unidades organizativas indigenas del area
indoeuropea de Hispania. Vitoria a Gasteiz, 1986

Jones, R. F. J. “The Roman military occupation of north-western Spain’,
JRS 66 (1976) 45-66

Keay, S. J. Roman Spain. London, 1988

1070
228.
229.

230.
231.

232.

235.
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.

241.

242.
243.

244.

245.

246.
247.
248.
249.
250.

251.

252.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Le Roux, P. L’armée romaine et I organisation des provinces ibériques d Auguste
4 Pinvasion de gog. Paris, 1982

Le Roux, P. ‘Les sénateurs originaires de la province d’Hispania
citérieure au Haut-Empire romain’, in D 42, 439-64

Lomas Salmonte, F. J. Asturia prerromana y altoimperial. Seville, 1975
Mackie, N. Local Administration in Roman Spain a.p. 14-212 (BAR
International Series 172). Oxford, 1983

Maluquer de Motes Nicolau, J. et a/. Ciudades augusteas de Hispania. 2 vols.
Saragossa, 1976

. Montenegro Duque, A. ef al. Historia de Espanta. Espana romana (218 a.

de J. C.—q14 de J. C.). 2 vols. Madrid, 1982

. Palomar Lapesa, M. La onomdstica personal pre-latina de la antigua Lusitania.

Salamanca, 1957

Roldan Hervas, J. M. Hispania y el ejército romano. Contribucion a la historia
Social de la Esparia antigua. Salamanca, 1974

Roldan Hervas, J. M. Itineraria Hispana. Fuentes antiguas para el estudio de
Jas vias romanas en la Peninsula Ibérica. Madrid, 1975

Santos Yanguas, N. ‘La conquista romana del N. O. de la Peninsula
Ibérica’, Latomus 41 (1982) 5-49

Schulten, A. Les Cantabros y los Astures y su guerra con Roma. Madrid, 1943
Solana Sainz, J. M. Los Cantabros y la ciudad de Iuliobriga. Santander, 1981
Sutherland, C. H. V. The Romans in Spain 217 B.C.—A.D. 117. London, 1939
Syme, R. ‘The conquest of north-west Spain’, Legio VII gemina, 83-107.
Leon, 1970 (=A 94, I, 825-54)

Thouvenot, R. Essai sur la province romaine de Bétique. Paris, 1940
Tovar, A. Iberische Landeskunde u. Die Volker und die Stadte des antiken
Hispanien. 2 vols. Baden-Baden, 1974-6

Tranoy, A. La Galice romaine. Recherches sur le nord-ouest de la péninsule
tbérique dans [ antiquité. Paris, 1981

Wiegels, R. Die Tribusinschriften des rémischen Hispanien. Ein Katalog
(Madrider Forschungen 13). Berlin, 1985

4. GAUL
Actes du colloque: Mines et fonderies antiques de la Gaule, 1980. Toulouse, 1982
Actes du colloque: La patrie gauloise, 1981. Lyons, 1983
Actes du colloque: Le vicus gallo-romain (Caesarodunum X1). Paris, 1976
Agache, R. ‘Détection aérienne de vestiges protohistoriques gallo-
romains et médiévaux dans le bassin de la Somme et ses abords’. Bulletin
de la Société de Prébistoire du Nord, Special Number 7. Amiens, 1970
Agache, R. ‘La villa gallo-romaine dans les grandes plaines du nord de la
France’, Archeologia 55 (1973) 37-S2
Agache, R. ‘La campagne 4 I’époque romaine dans les grandes plaines du
Nord de la France’, ANRW II, 4 (1975) 658-713
Agache, R. La Somme préromaine (Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires
de Picardie 24). Amiens, 1978

. Amy, R. and Gros, P. La Maison Carrée de Nimes (Gallia Suppl. 38). Paris,

1979

254.

256.
257.

258.
259.

260.
261.

263.

264.

265.
266.
267.
268.
269.
270.
271.

272.

275.
276.

277.
278.

279.

GAUL 107!

Ancien, B. and Tuffreau-Libre, M. Soissons gallo-romain, décosvertes
anciennes et récentes. Soissons, 1980

. Archéologie et rapports sociaux en Gaule (Actes de la table ronde de Besangon

1982, CNRS). Besangon, 1984

Archéologie urbaine, Actes du colloque international de Tours 1980. Paris, 1982
Architecture domestique de terre et de bois dans les provinces octidentales de
PEmpire romain, Actes du 2° congrés de Gaule méridionale. Lyons, 1983
Aspects de la construction de bois en Normandie du If au XIV® siécle, ed. P.
Halbout and J. Le Maho. Caen, 1984

Aubin, G. ‘L’or romain dans l’ouest de la Gaule, circulation et
stagnation’, Revue Archéologique de POuest 1 (1984) 89-119

Audin, A. Lyon, miroir de Rome. Fayard, 1979

Audin, A. and Burnand, Y. ‘Le marché lyonnais de la pierre sous le Haut-
Empire romain’, Actes du 9& congrés national des Sociétés Savantes, Saint-
Etienne 1973. Paris, 1975

. Audin, A. and Reynaud, J.-F. ‘Le mur de bord de Sa6ne et ses

inscriptions antiques’, Bulletin Musées et Monuments Lyonnais 6 (1977-81)
457-77

Autun-Axugustodunum, capitale des Eduens. Exhibition catalogue. Autun,
1985

Badian, E. ‘Notes on Provincia Gallia in the late Republic’, in Chevallier,
R. (ed.) Mélanges & Archéologie et d Histoire offerts a André Piganiol, 901-18.
Paris, 1966

Balty, J.-Ch., ‘La basilique de Bavay et les basiliques de forum’, Revue du
Nord 71 (1989) 5-65

Barbet, A. ‘Peintures de second style schématique en Gaule et dans
l’Empire romain’, Gallia 26 (1968) 145-76

Barbet, A. ‘Glanum’, Gallia Suppl. 27 (1974)

Barbet, A. ‘La diffusion du 3° style pompéien en Gaule’, Gallia 40 (1982)
Barbet, A. ‘L’introduction de la _peinture murale romaine en
Transalpine’, Etudes languedociennes, CTHS (1985) 181-204

Barraud, D. et a/. ‘Le site de “la France’: origines et évolution urbaine de
Bordeaux antique’, Aguitania 6 (1988) 3-59

Barruol, G. ‘Les peuples préromains du Sud-Est de la Gaule’, RAN
Suppl. 1 (1969)

Barruol, G. ‘La résistance des substrats préromains en Gaule
meéridionale’, & congrés international des études classiques. Paris, 1976

. Bayard, D. and Massy, J.-L. ‘Amiens romain. Samarobriva

Ambianorum’, Revue archéologique de Picardie (1983)

. Bémont, C. and Jacob, J.-P. (eds.) La terre sigillée gallo-romaine. (DAF 6).

1986

Benoit, F. Fouslles de Cemelenum 1. Cimiez, la ville antique. Paris, 1977
Benoit, J. ‘Nimes: études sur l’urbanisme antique’, Bulletin de P? Ecole
antique de Nimes, 16 (1981) 69-90

Berchem, D. van ‘Avenches, colonie latine’, Chiron 11 (1981) 221-8
Berchem, D. van Les routes et Phistoire. Geneva, 1982

Bloemers, J. H. F. ‘Acculturation in the Rhine/Meuse basin in the

1072

284.

285.
286.
287.

288.
289.

290.
291.
292.

293.

294.

296.
297.
298.
299.

300.
301.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Roman period’, in Brandt, R. and Slofstra, J. (eds.) Roman and Native in
the Low Countries (BAR International Series 64) (Oxford, 1983) 159-209

. Bégli, H. and Weidmann, D. ‘Nouvelles recherches 4 Aventicum’,

Archdaologie der Schweiz 1 (1978) 71-4

. Boiron, R., Landuré, C. and Nin, N. ‘Les fouilles de l’aire du Chapitre’,

Documents d archéologie aixoise 2 (1986)

. Bordeaux, Saint-Christoly, sauvetage archéologique et histoire urbaine.

Bordeaux, 1982-3

. Bost, J.-P. ‘Spécificité des villes et effets de l’urbanisation dans

P Aquitaine augustéenne’, Actes du colloque Villes et Campagnes dans
LP Empire romain, Aix-en-Provence 1980, 61-76. Aix, 1982

Bost, J.-P. and Fabre, G. ‘Aux origines de la province de
Novempopulanie. Nouvel examen de V’inscription d’Hasparren’,
Aguitania 6 (1988) 167-78

Bridel, P. ‘Le nouveau plan archéologique de Nyon’, Archéologie Suisse V
(1982) 178-83

Broise, P. Genéve et son territoire dans I antiquité. (Coll. Latomus). Brussels,
1974

Broise P. ‘L’urbanisme vicinal aux confins de la Viennoise et de la
Séquanaise’, ANRW II, 5. 2 (1976) 602-29

Brulet, R. Braives gallo-romain. 1: La zone centrale. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1981
Brulet, R. ‘Les origines du vicus 4 la lumiére des recherches récentes en
Belgique méridionale’, LEC 53 (1985) 51-60

Brun, J.-P. ‘L’oléiculture antique en Provence’, RAN Suppl. 15 (1986)
Burnand, Y. Domitit Aquenses. Paris, 1975

Burnand, Y. ‘Sénateurs et chevaliers romains originaires de la cité de
Nimes’, MEFR.A (1975) 681-791

Burnand, Y. ‘Le réle des communications fluviales dans la genése et le
développement des villes antiques du Sud-Est de la Gaule’, in Duval,
P.-M. and Frézouls, E. (eds.) Thémes de recherche sur les villes antiques
d Occident, 279-305. Paris, 1977

Burnand, Y. ‘Primores Galliarum, Sénateurs et chevaliers romains
originaires de la Gaule de la fin de la République au TII* siécle’. Diss.,
Paris, 1985

. Cadastres et espace rural, approches et réalités antiques (Actes de la table ronde

de Besangon 1980, éd. CNRS). Paris, 1983

Cadoux, J.-L. ‘Amiens dans l’Antiquité: Samarobriva Ambianorum’, in
Hulschen, R. (ed.) Histoire d’ Amiens, 7-46. Toulouse, 1986

Cambon, C. ‘Les thermes romains dans le Sud de la Gaule’, Mélanges M.
Labrousse, Pallas 32 (1986) 259-82

Chapotat, G. ‘Le probléme des enceintes successives de Vienne’, Bull.
Soc. des amis de Vienne (1976) 7-30

Chevallier, R. ‘Gallia Lugdunensis. Bilan de vingt-cing ans de recherches
historiques et archéologiques’, ANRW II, 3 (1975) 860-1060
Chevallier, R. ‘Gallia Narbonensis’, ANRW II, 3 (1975) 686-828
Chevallier, R. ‘Cité et territoire: solutions romaines aux problémes de
Porganisation de l’espace’, ANRW II, 1 (1974) 649-784

302.
303.

304.

305.

306.

307.

308.

309.
310.

313.
314.
315.

316.

317.

318.

319.

320.

GAUL 1073

Chossenot, F. ef a/. ‘Metz antique’, in £ 364, I, 235-350

Chouquer, G. and Favory, F. Contribution a la recherche des cadastres
antiques. Paris, 1980

Christie, F. and Morel, J. ‘Un nouveau quartier romain de Nyon: fouilles
de Bel-Air, 1978-1980’, EL 1 (1982) 105-25

Christol, M. ‘Réflexions sur le provincialisme gallo-romain’, Centralismo
y Decentralizacion 1983, 79-99. Madrid, 1985

Christol, M. and Goudineau, C. ‘Nimes et les Volques Arécomiques’,
Gallia 45 (1987-8) 87-103

Clavel-Lévéque, M. ‘Pour une problématique des _ conditions
économiques de l’implantation romaine dans le Midi gaulois’, Cahiers
ligures de Préhistoire et Archéologie 24 (1975) 35-75

Clavel-Lévéque, M. Marseille grecque. Marseilles, 1977

Clavel-Lévéque, M. Puzzle gaulois, les Gaules en mémoire. Paris, 1989
Clavel-Lévéque, M. and Lévéque, P. ‘Impérialisme et sémiologie.
L’espace urbain 4 Glanum’, MEFRA 94, 2 (1982) 675-98

. Ciippers, H. ‘Die Stadt Trier und die verschiedenen Phasen ihres

Ausbaus’, in Duval, P. M. and Frézouls, E. (eds.) Thémes de recherches sur
les villes antiques [ Occident, 223-8. Paris, 1977

. Dangréaux, B. ‘Recherches sur les origines de Grenoble d’aprés l’étude

du mobilier archéologique’, Gallia 46 (1989) 71-102

Daubigney, A. ‘Reconnaissance des formes de la dépendance gauloise’,
DHA $5 (1979) 145-89

Delplace, C. ‘Les villes de la Gaule Belgique au Haut-Empire’, RA
(1983) 345-78

Deman, A. ‘Germania Inferior et Gallia Belgica: état actuel de la
documentation épigraphique’, ANRW HI, 1 (1974) 300-19

Desbat, A. and Martin-Kilcher, S. ‘Les amphores sur l’axe Rhin-Rh6ne 4
Pépoque d’ Auguste’, Anfore romane e storia economica: un decennio di ricerche,
Atti del colloguio di Siena (1986) (Coll. de l’école frangaise de Rome 114),
339-65. Paris, 1989

Desbordes, J.-M. ‘Jalons pour |’étude des noyaux urbains dans
Pantiquité gallo-romaine: exemples régionaux’, Cahiers archéologiques de
Picardie (1974) 97-102

Desbordes, J.-M. ‘Les origines de la vie urbaine en Limousin: ébauche
d’une problématique’, RAAC XVI (1977) 221-42

Dion, R. ‘La ville en Gaule a l’€poque impériale romaine’, RDM
Jan-Feb 1954

Doreau, J. Girardy, C. and Pichonneau, J.-F. ‘Contribution 4 l’étude du
forum de Vésone (Périgueux, Dordogne)’, Aguitania 3 (1985) 91-104

. Doreau, J. Golvin, J.-C. and Maurin, L. L’ampbithéétre gallo-romain de

Saintes. Paris, 1982

. Drinkwater, J.-F. ‘Lugdunum: “natural capital”? of Gaul?’, Britannia 6

(1975) 133-40

. Drinkwater, J.-F. ‘The rise and fall of the Gallic Iulii’, Lasomus 37 (1978)

817-50

1074
324.

325.
326.

327.
328.

329.
330.
331.
332.
333-

334-
335-

336.
337-
338.
339.
340.
341.
342.
343-

344.

345.
346.
347-
348.
349-

350.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Drinkwater, J.-F. ‘A note on local careers in the Three Gauls under the
early Empire’, Britannia 10 (1979) 89-100

Drinkwater, J.-F. “Gallic personal wealth’, Chiron 9 (1979) 237-42
Drinkwater, J.-F. Roman Gaul: the Three Provinces, 8 B.C.—A.D. 260.
London—Canberra, 1983

Duby, G. Histoire de la France urbaine 1. La ville antique. Paris, 1980
Duncan-Jones, R.-P. ‘The wealth of Gaul’, Chiron 11 (1981) 217-20
Duval, P.-M. La vie quotidienne en Gaule pendant la paix romaine. Paris, 1952
Duval, P.-M. Paris antique, des origines au III siécle. Paris, 1960

Duval, P. M. Les dieux de la Gaule. Payot, 1970. Rev. edn 1976

Duval, P.-M. Les sources de I’ histoire de France 1. La Gaule jusqu’au milieu du
V* siécle. 2 vols. Paris, 1971

Duval, P.-M. ‘Bilan et perspectives des études sur la Gaule romaine’, Atti
del colloguio sul tema La Gallia romana (1971), 7-16. Rome, 1973

Ebel, C. Transalpine Gaul, the Emergence of a Roman Province. Leiden, 1976
Ebel, C. ‘Southern Gaul in the triumviral period: a critical stage of
romanization’, AJPA 109 (1988) 572-90

Les enceintes augustéennes dans [Occident romain, Actes du colloque de Nimes
1985. Ecole Antique de Nimes, 1987

Es, W. A. van ‘Das niederlandische Flussgebiet von der Rémerzeit bis
ins Forschungsprogramm’, Betheft zum Bericht der R.-G. Kommission 58
(1977) 105-26

Etienne, R. Bordeaux antique, Fed. Hist. du Sud-Ouest. Bordeaux, 1962
Ettlinger, E. ‘Die italische Sigillata von Novaesium’, Novaesium 1X
(1983)

Euzennat, M. ‘Les fouilles de la Bourse 4 Marseille’, CR.AI (1976)
$29-52

Euzennat, M. ‘Ancient Marseilles in the light of recent excavations’,
AJA 74 (1980) 133-40

Faider-Feytmans, G. ‘Les vici du Nord de la Gaule a l’€poque romaine’,
Annales de la Fédération historique et archéologique de Belgique (1953) 11-16
Favory, F. ‘L’esclavage en Narbonnaise et en Lyonnaise’, Actes du collogue
sur Pesclavage, 317-38. Besangon, 1974

Ferdiére, A. ‘Organisation et contrdle de l’espace rural par la ville’, Actes
du collogue Villes et Campagnes dans L’ Empire romain, Aix-en-Provence 1982,
95-100. Marseilles, 1982

Feugére, M. Les fibules en Gaule méridionale de la conquéte a la fin du V" siécle
aprés J.-C. Paris, 1985

Février, P.-A. ‘Les villes et campagnes des Gaules sous |’Empire’, Ktema
6 (1981) 359-72

Février, P.-A., Fixot, M. and Rivet, L. Aw coeur d'une ville épiscopale, Fréjus.
Fréjus, 1988

Février, P.-A., Janon, M. and Varoqueaux, C. ‘Fouilles au Clos du
Chapitre 4 Fréjus’, CR.AI (1972) 335-81

Feévrier, P.-A., Janon, M. and Varoqueaux, C. ‘The origins and growth
of the cities of southern Gaul’, JRS 63 (1973) 1-28

Fiches, J.-L. ‘Processus d’urbanisation indigéne dans la région de
Nimes’, DHA 5 (1979) 35-57

351.

3§2.

353-
354.
355-
356.
357-
358.
359-
360.
361.

362.

363.
364.
365.

366.

367.
368.
369.
3709.
371.
372.
373-

374-

375.

GAUL 1075

Fiches, J.-L. L’oppidum @ Ambrussum: le pont romain, le quartier bas.
Caveirac, 1982

Fiches, J.-L. ‘Les transformations de I’habitat autour de Nimes au Haut-
Empire’, Actes du collogue Villes et Campagnes dans f Empire romain, Aix-en-
Provence 1982, 111-23. Marseilles, 1982

Fiches, J.-L. Les maisons gallo-romaines ? Ambrussum (V illetelle-Hérault).
La fouille du secteur IV 1976-1980 (DAF 35). Paris, 1986

Fiches, J.-L. ‘L’espace rural antique dans le Sud-Est de la France:
ambitions et réalités archéologiques’, Annales ESC (1987) 219-38
Fischer, F. Der Heidengraben bei Grabenstetten. Stuttgart, 1971

Fishwick, D. “The temple of the Three Gauls’, JRS 62 (1972) 46-52
Fishwick, D. ‘L’autel des Trois Gaules: le temoignage des monnaies’,
BSNAF (1986) 90-111

Fixot, M., Guyon, J., Pelletier, J.-P. and Rivet, L. Les fouilles de la cour de
P Archevéché, Documents @ archéologie aixoise 1 (1985)

Formigé, J. Le trophée des Alpes (La Turbie) (Gallia Suppl. 2). Paris, 1949
Los foros romanos de las provincias occidentales. Madrid, 1987

Frere, S. S. “Town planning in the western provinces’, Beiheft zum Bericht
der R. G. Kommission 58 (1977) 87-103

Frézouls, E. ‘Metodo per lo studio dell’urbanistica, strutture e
infrastrutture delle citta antiche d’Occidente’, Atti CSDIR III (1970-1)
79-100

Frézouls, E. ‘Etudes et recherches sur les villes en Gaule’, Atti del
colloguio sul tema La Gallia romana (1971), 153-66. Rome, 1973

Frézouls, E. Les villes antiques de France: 1: Belgique (1982) u: Germanie
Supérieure 1 (Strasbourg, 1988)

Frézouls, E. ‘Evergétisme et construction urbaine dans les Trois Gaules
et Germanies’, Mélanges E. Will, Revue du Nord (1984) 27-54

Frézouls, E. ‘L’empire romain et la cité. Réflexions sur la politique
urbanisation’, Actes dug s‘ congrés national des Sociétés Savantes, Reims 1970.
Paris, 1974 43-8

Furger-Gunti, A. ‘Die Ausgrabungen in Basler Muster’, Basler Beitr. Ur-
und Friihgeschichte 6 (1979)

Galinié, H. et a/. Les archives du sola Tours. Survie et avenir de I archéologie de la
ville. Tours, 1979

Galliou, P. L’ Armorique romaine. Braspars, 1983

Galliou, P. Les tombes romaines d Armorique, (DAF 17) 1989

Gascou, J. ‘Quand la colonie de Forum Julii fut-elle fondée?’, Latomus 41
(1982) 132-45

Gayraud, M. ‘Narbonne aux trois premiers siécles aprés J.-C.’, ANRWV
II, 3 (1975) 829-59

Gayraud, M. Narbonne antique des origines a la fin du IIF siécle(RAN Suppl.
8). 1981

Giard, J.-B. ‘La pénurie de petite monnaie en Gaule au début du Haut-
Empire’, JS (1975) 81-102

Goudineau, C. ‘Le statut de Nimes et des Volques Arécomiques’, RAN
9 (1976) 105-14

1076

376.
377:

378.
379:

380.

381.

382.
383.

384.
385.

386.

387.

388.
389.

390.
391.

392.

393-
394.

395-
396.
397-

398.

399-

400.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Goudineau, C. ‘Les fouilles de la Maison au Dauphin, recherches sur la
romanisation de Vaison-la-Romaine’, Gallia Suppl. 37 (1979)
Goudineau, C. ‘Note sur la fondation de Lyon’, Gallia 44 (1986) 171-3
Goudineau, C. (ed.) Aux origines de Lyon. Lyons, 1989

Le gotit du thédtre a Rome et en Gaule romaine. Musée archéologique de
Lattes, 1989

Grenier, A. ‘Le recrutement des légionnaires romains en Narbonnaise’,
BSNAF (1956) 35-42

Gros, P. ‘Traditions hellénistiques de l’Orient dans le décor architectural
des temples romains de Gaule Narbonnaise’, Actes du colloque sur la Gaule
romaine, 167-80. Rome, 1973

Gros, P. ‘Les arcs de triomphe de Gaule Narbonnaise’, Gallia 37 (1979)
55-83

Gros, P. ‘Les temples géminés de Glanum, étude préliminaire’, RAN 14
(1981) 125-58

Gros, P. ‘L’ Augusteum de Nimes’, RAN 17 (1984) 123-34

Gros, P. ‘Un programme augustéen: le centre monumental de la colonie
d’Arles’, [DAI 102 (1987) 339-63

Guild, R., Guyon, J. and Rivet, L. ‘Les origines du baptistére de la
cathédrale Saint-Sauveur, étude de topographie aixoise’, RAN 16 (1983)
171-232

Harmand, J. Les origines des recherches frangaises sur habitat rural gallo-
romain (Coll. Latomus 51). Brussels, 1961

Hatt, J.-J. Celtes et gallo-romains. Geneva, 1970

Heinen, H. ‘Auguste en Gaule et les origines de la ville romaine de
Tréves’, Hommages L. Lerat, 1, 329-48. Paris, 1984

Hesnard, A. ef al. L’épave du Grand Ribaud D (Archaeonautica, 8). 1988
Hiernard, J. ‘La topographie historique de Poitiers dans l’antiquité’, Bu//.
Soc. des Antiquaires de ? Ouest (1987) 163-88

Hirschfeld, O. ‘Die Organisation der drei Gallien durch Augustus’, Kéio
8 (1908) 464-76

Histoire de Nimes. Aix-en-Provence, 1982

Kaenel, G., Klausener, M. and Fehlmann, S. Lousonna 2: nouvelles
recherches sur le vicus gallo-romain, CAR 18 (1980)

Kisch, Y. de ‘Tarifs de donation en Gaule romaine d’aprés les
inscriptions’, Ktema 4 (1979) 259-80

Kleiner, F. S. ‘Artists in the Roman world: an itinerant workshop in
Augustan Gaul’, MEFRA (1972) 661-95

Labrousse, M. Toulouse antique des origines a Pétablissement des Wisigoths.
Paris, 1968

Laet, S.-J. de ‘Esquisse de la naissance et du développement des
agglomérations urbaines en Gaule septentrionale a l’€poque romaine’,
Pamatky archeologicke 52 (1961) 450-8

Laet, S.-J. de. ‘Claude et la romanisation de la Gaule septentrionale’,
Mélanges A. Piganiol u, 951-61. Paris, 1966

Lafon, X. ‘Sur quelques représentations iconographiques des habitants
de Narbonnaise de César 4 Auguste’, Ktema 9 (1984) 89-95

4ol.
402.

403.

404.
405.

406.

407.
408.

409.
410.

4il.
412.
413.
414.
415.

416.

417.
418.

419.
420.

421.

422.

423.

424.

425.

GAUL 1077

Langouet, L. Les Coriosolites. St Malo, 1988

Lasfargues, J. and Vertet, H. ‘L’atelier de potiers augustéen de la Muette
a Lyon, la fouille de sauvetage de 1966’, Notes d Epigraphie et d Archéologie
/yonnaise, 61-80. Lyons, 1976

Lasfargues, J. and Le Glay, M. ‘Découverte d’un sanctuaire municipal du
culte impérial 4 Lyon’, CR-AI (1980) 394-414

Laubenheimer, F. La production des amphores en Gaule Narbonnaise. Paris, 1985
Laubenheimer, F. ‘Production et fonction des amphores en Gaule sous
Empire’, Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines 11, 191-9. Paris 1987
Laubenheimer, F. ‘Les amphores gauloises sous l’Empire: recherches
nouvelles sur leur production et leur chronologie’, Anfore romane e storia
economica: un decennio di ricerche, Atti del colloquio di Siena (1986) (Coll. de
Pécole francaise de Rome 114), 105-38. Paris, 1989

Laur-Belart, R. Fuhrer durch Augusta Raurica. Basle, 1948

Lauxerois, R. ‘Le Bas-Vivarais 4 !’€poque romaine’, RAN Suppl. 9
(1983)

Le Gall, J. Adsia. Paris, 1963

Le Glay, M. and Tourrenc, S. ‘L’originalité de l’architecture domestique
4 Vienne d’aprés les découvertes récentes de Saint-Romain-en-Gal’,
CRAI (1972) 764-74

Leday, A. ‘Trois vici du Cher’, Caesarodunum 11 (1976) 237-55

Leday, A. ‘La campagne a |’€poque romaine dans le Centre de la Gaule’
(BAR International Series). Oxford, 1980

Leman, P. ‘Les villes gallo-romaines de la région Nord/Pas-de-Calais a la
lumiére des fouilles récentes’, R.A (1979) 168-76

Lerat, L. ‘Vesontio. Besangon antique’, Histoire de Besancon (1964) 27-241
Lerat, L. La Gaule romaine, textes choisis et présentés. Paris, 1977
Lewuillon, S. ‘Histoire, société et lutte des classes en Gaule’, ANRW II,
4 (1975) 427-583

Loustaud, J.-P. Limoges gallo-romain. Limoges, 1980

Lutéce-Paris de César 4 Clovis. Catalogue of the Musée Carnavalet. Paris,
1984

Mackendrick, P. Roman France. New York, 1972

Mandy, B. ef a/. ‘Un réseau de fossés défensifs aux origines de Lyon’,
Gallia 45 (1987-8) 49-66

Mangin, M. Un quartier de commercants et d artisans d Alésia. Contribution a
Phistoire de Phabitat urbain en Gaule. Paris, 1981

Mangin, M. Artisanat et commerce dans les agglomérations romaines du Centre-
Est sous P Empire. Origine des richesses, dépenses dans la ville antique. Aix-en-
Provence, 1984

Mangin, M., Jacquet, R. and Jacob, J.-P. Les agglomérations secondaires en
Franche-Comté (Ann. Litt. Univ. Besangon 337). Paris, 1987

Martin, R. ‘Formation et développement de Il’habitat urbain en Gaule
romaine’, in Actes du colloque international du CNRS, thémes de recherches sur
les villes antiques d Occident, Strasbourg 1971, 173-83. Paris, 1977

Martin, R. and Varéne, P. ‘Le monument d’Ucuetis 4 Alésia’, Gallia

Suppl. 26 (1973)

1078

427.

428.
429.

430.
431.
432.
433.
434.
435.
436.
437-

438.
439:
440.

441.

442.

443.

445.

446.
447.

448.
449.
450.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Martin-Kilcher S. Die rémischen Amphoren aus Augst und Kaiseraugst
(Forschungen in Augst, 7). Augst, 1987

Maurin, L. Saintes antique des origines a la findu VI siécle aprés J.-C. Saintes,
1978

Maurin, L. ‘Gaulois et Lyonnais’, in REA 88 (1986) 109-24

Maurin, L. (ed.) Les fowilles de ‘Ma Maison’, Etudes sur Saintes antique,
(Aquitania Suppl. 3). Bordeaux, 1988

Mediolanum, une bourgade gallo-romaine. Exhibition catalogue. Dijon, 1988
Meélanges offerts a Roger Dion. Paris, 1974

Mélanges offerts a E. Will. (Revue du Nord 46) 1984

Mertens, J. ‘Réflexions sur le rapport ville-campagne dans le Nord de la
Gaule’, Actes du colloque L’archéologie du paysage urbain, Paris, ENS, 1979,
Caesarodunum 15 (1980) 75—8

Mertens, J. L’armée romaine en Belgique’, Histoire et Archéologie. Les
dossiers 86 (Aug—Sept 1984) 59-64

Middleton, P. ‘Army supply in Roman Gaul’, Invasion and Response, 81-97
(BAR British Series 73). Oxford, 1979

Moreau, J. Dictionnaire de la géographie historique de la Gaule et de la France.
Paris, 1972

Moreau, J. Supplément au dictionnaire de la géographie historique de la Gaule et
de la France. Paris, 1983

Nash, D. ‘Plus ¢a change: currency in Central Gaul from Julius Caesar to
Nero’, in Carson, R. A. G. and Kraay, C. M. (eds.) Scripta Nummaria
Romana. Essays Presented to Humphrey Sutherland, 12-31. London, 1978
Neiss, R. ‘Reims gallo-romain. Ebauche de histoire d’un site urbain’,
Congrés archéologique de France, 135* session, 1977, Champagne, 52-78. Paris,
1980

Neiss, R. Le développement urbain de Reims dans [antiquité. Reims, 1977
Neiss, R. ‘Une dédicace de la cité des Rémes 4 C. César et L. César’, Bull.
Soc. Arch. Champenoise 4 (1982) 3-8

Nicolini, G. ‘Les sanctuaires ruraux de Poitou-Charentes: quelques
exemples d’implantation et de structure interne’, Caesarodunum 11 (1976)
256-72

Nicolini, G. ‘Stratigraphie et histoire de Poitiers aux 1° et II* siécles’,
Actes du 111° congrés national des Sociétés savantes, Poitiers 1986, 7-24. Paris
1987

. Oliver, J. H. ‘North, South, East, West in Arausio and elsewhere’,

Meélanges Piganiol (Paris, 1966) 1075-9

Pailler, J-M. ‘Domitien et la cité de Pallas, un tournant dans l’histoire de
Toulouse antique’, Pallas 34 (1988) 99-109

Palladia Tolosa, Toulouse romaine. Musée Saint-Raymond, Toulouse, 1988
Pape, L. ‘Villes et urbanisme dans |’extréme ouest de l’Armorique 4
Pépoque gallo-romaine’, R.A (1975) 177-91

Pape, L. La civitas des Osismes a Pépoque gallo-romaine. Paris, 1978
Passelac, M. ‘Le vicus Eburomagus’, R_AN 3 (1970) 71-101

Paunier, D. ‘L’archéologie gallo-romaine en Suisse romande; bilan et
perspectives’, EL 1 (1982) 5-28

4jl.
452.

453
454.
455.
456.
457:
458.
459.
460.

461.
462.

463.
464.

465.
466.
467.
468.
469.

470.

47l.

472.
473-
474.
475-

476.
477-

GAUL 1079

Paunier, D. et al. Le vicus gallo-romain de Vidy-Lausanne. Lausanne, 1989
Peinture murale en Gaule ( Actes des séminaires de Limoges (1980) de Sarrebourg
(1981). Nancy, 1984; de Lisieux (1982) de Bordeaux (1983) (BAR
International Series 240). Oxford, 1985; de Vaison-Ja-Romaine (1987).
Vaison, 1990

Pelletier, A. ‘La superficie des exploitations agraires dans le cadastre
d’Orange’, Latomus 25 (1976) 582-5

Pelletier, A. Vienne antique. Roanne, 1982

Pelletier, A. Vienne antique 1. Lyons, 1983

Petrikovits, H. von ‘Kleinstadte und nichtstadtische Siedlungen im
Nordwesten des rémischen Reichs’, in Das Dorf der Eisenzeit und des friihen
Mittelalters, 86-135. G6ttingen, 1977

Pétry, F. ‘Observations sur les vici explorés en Alsace’, Caesarodunum 11.
(1976) 273-95

Pétry, F. ‘La culture gallo-romaine des sommets vosgiens’, R.A (1981)
161-7

Pétry, F. ‘La ville romaine: Argentoratum’, in Livet, G. and Rapp, F.
(eds.) Histoire de Strasbourg. Toulouse, 1987

Pflaum, H.-G. ‘Les fastes de la province Narbonnaise’, Gallia Suppl. 30
(1978)

Picard, G.-C. ‘Le trophée augustéen de La Turbie’, R.4 34 (1949) 151-6
Picard, G.-C. ‘La mythologie au service de la romanisation’, Mythologie
gréco-romaine, échos d iconographie, CNRS, 41~52. Paris, 1981

Picard, G.-C. ‘La république des Pictons’, CR.AI 1982, 532-62

Picard, G.-C. ‘Les centres civiques ruraux dans I’Italie et la Gaule
romaines’, Architecture et société, 415-22. Rome, 1983

Pilet, C. “Vieux antique (Araegenuae, Viducasses)’, Rev. Arch. Ouest 1
(1984) 63-84

Py, M. L’oppidum des Castels a Nages (fouilles 19 58-1974). (Gallia Suppl. 35)
1978

Py, M. ‘Recherches sur Nimes préromaine’, Gallia Suppl. 41 (1981)
Raepsaet-Charlier, M.-T. and Raepsaet, G. ‘Gallia Belgica et Germania.
1. Vingt-cinq années de recherches historiques et archéologiques’,
ANRW IL, 4 (1975) 3-299

Rambaud, M. ‘L’origine militaire de la colonie de Lugdunum’, CRAI
(1965) 252-77

Reddé, M. ‘Le camp militaire romain d’Arlaines et l’aile des Voconces’,
Gallia 43 (1985) 49-79

Richard, J. C. M. ‘Le probléme des origines de Montpellier’, RAN 2
(1969) 49-62

Rivet, A. Gallia Narbonensis. London, 1988

Roblin, M. ‘Les limites de la civitas des Silvanectes’, BS NAF 1963, 27-9
Roblin, M. ‘Les limites de la civitas des Silvanectes’, JS 1963, 68-85
Rolland, H. ‘Fouilles de Glanum (Saint-Rémy-de-Provence)’, Gallia
Suppl. 1 (1946)

Rolland, H. ‘L’arc de Glanum’, Gallia Suppl. 31 (1977)

Roman, D. ‘Apollon, Auguste et Nimes’, RAN 14 (1981) 207-14

1080
478.

479.
480.

481.
482.

483.
484.

485.

486.
487.

488.
489.
490°.

491.
492.

493.

494-
495.

496.

497.
498.

499-

500.
501,

502.
593.

504.
505.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Roth-Congés, A. and Gros, P. ‘Le sanctuaire des eaux a Nimes’, RAC 22
(1983) 13146

Rouanet-Liesenfelt, A.-M. La civilisation des Pictones. Brest, 1980
Sabrié, M. and Solier, Y. La Maison a portiques du Clos de la Lombarde a
Narbonne et sa décoration murale, (RAN Suppl. 16). 1987

Salviat, F. ‘Marseille grecque’, and Euzennat, M. ‘Marseille romaine’, in
Baratier, E. (ed.) Histoire de Marseille. Toulouse, 1973

Salviat, F. ‘Orientation, extension et chronologie des plans cadastraux
d’Orange’, R-AN 10 (1977) 107-18

Schnurbein, S. von Die Rémer in Haltern. Minster, 1979

Schnurbein, S. von ‘Die Unverzierte Terra Sigillata aus Haltern’,
Bodenaltertiimer Westfalens 19 (1982)

Simpson, C. J. ‘The birth of Claudius and the date of dedication of the
altar Romae et Augusti at Lyon’, Latomus 46 (1987) 186-92

Syme, R. ‘Tacitus on Gaul’, Latomus 12 (1953) 23-37

Syme, R. ‘La richesse des aristocraties de Bétique et de Narbonnaise’,
Ktema 2 (1977) 373-80 (=A 94, Il, 977-85)

Syme, R. ‘More Narbonensian senators’, ZPE 65 (1986) (=A 94, V1,
209-31)

Tardy, D. Le décor architectonique de Saintes antique (Aquitania Suppl. 5).
1990

Tasseaux, D. and F. ‘Aulnay-de-Saintonge: un camp augusto-tibérien en
Aquitaine’, Aquitania 1 (1983) 49-95; 2 (1984) 105-57

Ternes, C.-M. Das rémische Luxemburg. Zurich, 1973

Ternes, C.-M. ‘Le vicus d’époque gallo-romaine en pays trévire et
thénan’, Caesarodunum 11 (1976) 18-31

Ternes, C.-M. ‘Recherches concernant la Gaule et les Germanies’, REL
56 (1978) 226-71

Trier, Augustusstadt der Treverer. Mainz, 1984

Turcan, R. ‘L’autel de Rome et d’ Auguste ad Confluentem’, ANRW x11
(1982) 607-44

Turcan, R. ‘L’arc de Carpentras: problémes de datation et d’histoire’,
Hommages L. Lerat, 809-19. Paris, 1984

Ugernum, Beaucaire et le Beaucairois a Pépoque romaine. Caveirac, 1987

Ur- und frithgeschichtliche Archdologie der Schweiz 5, Die Rémerzeit, Société
suisse de Préhistoire et d’Archéologie. Basle, 1976

Vaginay, M. and Valette, P. ‘Recherches sur les origines de l’urbanisme
antique de Feurs’, Cahiers archéologiques de la Loire 2 (1982) 39-72

Le vicus gallo-romain (Caesarodunum 11). Tours, 1976

Vidal, M. ‘Note préliminaire sur les puits et fosses funéraires du
Toulousain aux II* et I* siécle avant J.-C.’, Aguitania 4 (1986) 55-65
Villes augustéennes de Gaule, Actes du colloque & Autun 1985

Les villes de la Gaule Belgique au Haut-Empire, Actes du colloque de Saint-
Riquier 1982. (Revue archéologique de Picardie 3-4) 1984

Vingt ans d’archéologie a Vienne. Société des amis de Vienne, 1981
Walker, S. ‘Récentes recherches en archéologie gallo-romaine et
paléochrétienne sur Lyon et sa région’ (BAR International Series 1980).
Oxford, 1981

506.

507.

508.
509.

510.
51l.
512.
513.

514.

515.

516.
517.
518.
519.
520.

521.

533-
523.

524.

525.

526.

527.

GAUL 1081

Walter, H. La Franche-Comté romaine. Histoire de la Franche-Comté u.
Weholsheim, 1979

Walthew, C. V. ‘A note on the street plan and early growth of Roman
Amiens’, Britannia 12 (1981) 298-302

Werner, K.-]. Histoire de France, les origines. Paris, 1984

Wiblé, F. Forum Claudti Vallensium, la ville romaine de Martigny. Martigny,
1981

Wiblé, F. ‘Nouvelles découvertes de Martigny. Forum Claudii
Vallensium’, ArchS 5 (1982) 2-14

Wightman, E. M. Roman Trier and the Treveri. London, 1970
Wightman, E. M. ‘La Gaule Chevelue entre César et Auguste’, Actes du
LX* congrés international d études sur les frontiéres romaines, 473-83. Bucarest-
K6ln-Vienne, 1974

Wightman, E. M. ‘Rural settlement in Roman Gaul’, ANRW II, 4
(1975) 584-647

Wightman, E. M. ‘Le vicus dans le contexte de I’administration et de la
société gallo-romaine: quelques réflexions’, Caesarodunum 11 (1976)
59-64

Wightman, E. M. ‘Il y avait en Gaule deux sortes de Gaulois.
Assimilation et résistance 4 la culture gréco-romaine’, Travaux du VIt
congrés international d études classiques, Madrid 1974, 407-19. Bucarest—Paris,
1976

Wightman, E. M. ‘Soldier and civilian in early Roman Gaul’, A&fen des
XI internationalen Limeskongresses, Budapest, 59-64. 1976

Wightman, E. M. ‘Military arrangements, native settlements and related
developments in early Roman Gaul’, Helinium 17 (1977) 105-26
Wightman, E. M. ‘Peasants and potentates’, 4 JAH 3 (1978) 97-128
Wightman, E. M. ‘Imitation ou adaptation? Une note sur les inscriptions
dans le Nord de la Gaule romaine’, Mélanges E. Will, Revue du Nord (1984)
69-72

Wightman, E. M. Gallia Belgica. London, 1985

Wiseman, A. and Wiseman, P. Julius Caesar: the Battle for Gaul. London,
1980

Will, E. Bavay, cité gallo-romaine. Douai, 1957

Will, E. ‘Recherches sur le développement urbain sous |’Empire romain
dans le Nord de la France’, Gallia 20 (1962) 79-101

Witt, N. de. Urbanization and the Franchise in Roman Gaul, Lancaster, PA,
1940

Wolff, H. ‘Kriterien fir lateinische und rémische Stidte in Gallien und
Germanien und die “Verfassung”’ der gallischen Stammesgemeinden’,
BJ 176 (1976) 45-121

Wuilleumier, P. L’adzinistration de la Lyonnaise sous le Haut-Empire. Patis,
1948

Wuilleumier, P. Lyon, métropole des Gaules. Paris, 1953

1082

528.
529.

530.

5 32.
5 33-
534.

535-
536.

537-
538.

539.
540.

541.

$42.

543-
544-

545-

546.

$47.
548.

$49.
$§$0..

5§1.
§§2.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

5. BRITAIN

Bennett, P. “The topography of Roman Canterbury: a brief
reassessment’, ArchCant 100 (1984) 47-56

Birley, A. R. ‘Petillius Cerialis and the conquest of Brigantia’, Britannia 4
(1973) 179-90

Burnham, B. C. and Johnson, H. B. (eds.) Invasion and Response: the Case of
Roman Britain. Oxford, 1979

. Burnham, B. C. and Wacher, J. The Small Towns of Roman Britain.

London, 1990

Crummy, P. ‘The origins of some major Romano-British towns’,
Britannia 13 (1982) 125-34

Cunliffe, B. W. (ed.) Fifth Report of the Excavations of the Roman Fort at
Richborough, Kent. Oxford, 1968

Fishwick, D. ‘Templum Divo Claudio Constitutum’, Britannia 3 (1972)
164-81

Frere, S. ‘Civitas — a myth?’, Antiquity 35 (1961) 29-36

Frere, S. Verulamium Excavations 1. Oxford, 1972. Verulamium
Excavations u. London, 1983

Frere, S. Britannia. 3rd edn. London, 1987

Frere, S. and St Joseph, J. K. S. Roman Britain from the Air. Cambridge,
1983

Fulford, M. Si/chester Defences 197¢-80. London, 1984

Fulford, M. Guide to the Silchester Excavations: the Forum Basilica. Reading,
1985

Fulford, M. The Silchester Amphitheatre: Excavations of 1979-85. London,
1989

Greene, K. ‘Imported fine wares in Britain to a.pD. 250: a guide to
identification’, in Arthur, P. and Marsh, G. (eds.) Early Fine Wares in
Roman Britain. Oxford, 1978

Grew, F. and Hobley, B. (eds.) Roman Urban Topography in Britain and the
Western Empire. London, 1985

Hanson, W. S. and Campbell, D. B. ‘The Brigantes: from clientage to
conquest’, Britannia 17 (1986) 73-89

Hawkes, C. F. C. ‘History of the Belgic Dobunni, their division and
subjection’, in Clifford, E. M. Bagendon, a Belgic oppidum: a record of the
excavations of 1954-6, 62-7. Cambridge, 1961

Jones, G. D. B. and Mattingly, D. An Atlas of Roman Britain. Oxford,
1990

Margary, I. D. Roman Roads in Britain. 3rd edn. London, 1973

Millett, M. The Romanization of Britain, an Essay in archaeological
Interpretation. Cambridge, 1990

Milne, G. ‘Further evidence for Roman London Bridge?’, Britannia 13
(1982) 271-6

Ordnance Survey. Map of Roman Britain. Southampton, 1978

Piggott, S. The Druids. Harmondsworth, 1974

Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. The Place-Names of Roman Britain. London,

1979

553-

554-
555.

556.

5$7-
558.
$59.
560.
561.
562.
563.
564.

565.
566.

567.
568.
569.
$70.
$71.
$72.
573-

574.
575:

576.
577-
578.

579-

GERMANY 1083

Rodwell, W. ‘Coinage, oppida and the rise of Belgic power in south-
eastern Britain’, in Cunliffe, B. and Rowley, T. (eds.) Oppida: the
Beginnings of Urbanisation in Barbarian Europe, 181-367. Oxford, 1976
Rodwell, W. and Rodwell, K. ‘The Roman villa at Rivenhall, Essex’,
Britannia 4 (1973) 115-27

Ross, R. Pagan Celtic Britain. London, 1974

Salway, P. Roman Britain. Oxford, 1982

Todd, M. (ed.) Studies in the Romano-British Villa. Leicester, 1978
Todd, M. (ed.) Research on Roman Britain: 1960-89. Gloucester, 1989
Wacher, J. S. (ed.) The Civitas Capitals of Roman Britain. Leicester, 1966
Wacher, J. S. Towns of Roman Britain. London, 1995

Wacher, J. S. The Coming of Rome. London, 1981

Wacher, J. S. Roman Britain. London, 1978

Walthew, C. V. ‘The town house and the villa house in Roman Britain’,
Britannia 6 (1975) 189-205

Webster, G. Boudica: the British Revolt against Rome, A.D. 60. London, 1978
Webster, G. (ed.) Fortress into City. London, 1988

Whittick, G. C. ‘The earliest Roman lead-mining on Mendip and in
North Wales: a reappraisal’, Britannia 13 (1982) 113-24

6. GERMANY

Alfoldy, G. Die Legionslegaten der rimischen Rheinarmeen. EpStud 3. K6ln,
1967

Alféldy, G. Die Hilfstruppen der rémischen Proving Germania Inferior.
EpStud 6. Diisseldorf, 1968

Baatz, D. and Herrmann, F.-R. Die Romer in Hessen. 2nd edn. Stuttgart,
1982

Bogaers, J. E. ‘Civitates und Civitas-Hauptorte in der nérdlichen
Germania Inferior’, BJ 172 (1972) 312-33

Brandt, R. and Slofstra, J. (eds.) Roman and Native in the Low Countries,
Spheres of Interaction (BAR International Series 71). Oxford, 1983
Capelle, W. (ed.) Das alte Germanien. Die Nachrichten der griechischen und
romischen Schriftsteller. 2nd edn. Jena, 1937

Chevallier, R. Rome et la Germanie au premier siécle de notre ére. (Coll.
Latomus 53) Brussels, 1961

Cippers, H. Die Romer in Rheinland-Pfalz. Stuttgart, 1990

Ciippers, H. and Riiger, C. B. Romische Siedlungen und Kulturlandschaften,
Geschichtlicher Atlas der Rheinldnde ut. 1-2. Cologne, 1985

Doppelfeld, O. and Held, O. Der Rhein und die Romer. 2nd edn. Cologne,
1976

Eck. W. Die Statthalter der germanischen Provinzen vom 1-3. Jahrhundert.
EpStud 14. Koln, 1985

Fingerlin, G. ‘Dangstetten, ein augusteisches Legionslager am
Hochrhein’, BRGK (1972) 197-232

Follmann-Schulz, A.-B. ‘Die r6mischen Tempelanlagen in der Provinz
Germania Inferior’, ANRW II, 18.1 (1986) 672-793

. Heinen, H. Trier und das Trevererland in rimischer Zeit. Trier, 1985

1084

581.
582.

583.
584.

585.

586.

587.

588.

$89.

59°.

591.

592.

593-

594.

595.

596.

597-

598.

599-
Goo.

601.

6o2.

603.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Horn, H.-G. (ed.) Die Rémer in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Stuttgart, 1987
Klinghoffer, H. Germania Latina. Sammlung literarischer, inschriftlicher und
archaologischer Zeugnisse zur Geschichte und Kultur Westdeutschlands in der
Rémerzeit. Dusseldorf, 1955

Kriiger, B. e¢ al. Die Germanen, Geschichte und Kultur der germanischen
Stamme in Mitteleuropa 1. 4th edn. Berlin, 1983

Petrikovits, H. von Das rémische Rheinland. Archdologische Forschungen seit
1945.,Cologne, 1960

Petrikovits, H. von ‘Der Wandel rémischer Gefasskeramik in der
Rheinzone’, Landschaft und Geschichte: Festschrift fiir H. Petri, 383-404.
Bonn, 1970

Petrikovits, H. von Die Rheinlande in rémischer Zeit. Dusseldorf, 1978
Raepsaet-Charlier, M.-T. and Raepsaet-Charlier, G. ‘Gallia Belgica et
Germania Inferior, Vingt-cinqg années de recherches historiques et
archéologiques’, 4A NRW II, 4 (1975) 3-299

Roymans, N. ‘Tribale samenlevingen in Noord-Gallie’. Diss.,
Amsterdam—Utrecht, 1987

Riger, C. B. Germania Inferior. Untersuchungen zur Territorial-und
Verwaltungsgeschichte Niedergermaniens in der Prinzipatszeit (BJ Beih. 30).
1968

Schlippschuh, O. Die Handler im rémischen Kaiserreich in Gallien, Germanien
und den Donauprovinzen Ratien, Noricum und Pannonien. Amsterdam, 1974
Schénberger, H. ‘The Roman frontier in Germany, an archaeological
survey’, JRS $9 (1969) 144-97

Schénberger, H. ‘Die rsmischen Truppenlager der frihen und mittleren
Kaiserzeit zwischen Nordsee und Inn’, BRGK 66 (1985) 321-495
Schénberger, H. and Simon, H. G. Das augusteische Romerlager Rédgen.
Berlin, 1976

Stein, E. Die kaiserlichen Beamten und Truppenkérper im rémischen
Deutschland unter dem Prinzipat. Vienna, 1932

Ternes, C. M. La vie quotidienne en Rhénanie romaine (I"-IV siécles). Paris,
1972

Ternes, C. M. ‘Die provincia Germania Superior im Bilde der jiingeren
Forschung’, ANRW II, 5. 2 (1976) 721-1260

Todd, M. The Northern Barbarians. London, 1975

Vittinghoff, F. ‘Die politische Organisation der r6mischen Rheingebiete
in der Kaiserzeit’, Rhenania Romana, Atti dei Convegni Lincei 23 (1976) 73f
Weisgerber, J. L. Die Namen der Ubier. Cologne—Opladen, 1968
Weisgerber, J. L. Rhenania Germano-Celtica. Bonn, 1969

Wells, C. M. The German Policy of Augustus. An Examination of the
Archaeological Evidence. Oxford, 1972

Wild, J. P. Textile Manufacture in the Northern Roman Provinces.
Cambridge, 1970

7. RAETIA

Archaologie in Wairttemberg, Ergebnisse und Perspektiven archdologischer
Forschung von der Altsteinzeit bis zur Nexzeit, ed. D. Planck. Stuttgart, 1988

604.
6o5.
606,
607.
608.
Gog.

610.

612.

613.

614.

615.

616.

617.
618.

619.
620.

621.

622.

623.

624.
625.

626.

RAETIA 1085

Die Ausgrabungen in Manching, 11 vols. Wiesbaden, 1970-89

Berchem, D. van. ‘La conquéte de la Rhétie’, MH 25 (1968) 1-10
Bilgeri, G. Geschichte Vorarlbergs 1: Vom freien Ratien zum Staat der
Monforter. 2nd edn. Vienna~Cologne—Graz, 1976

Chantraine H. ‘Zu den neuen Fasten der raetischen Statthalter’, Bay
Vorgeschichtsbl 38 (1973) 111-15

Czysz, W., Dietz, K., Fischer, T. and Kellner, H.-). Die Romer in Bayern.
Stiittgart, 1995

Drack, W. and Fellmann, R. Die Romer in der Schweiz. Stuttgart—Jona SG,
1988

Eck, W. ‘Senatorische Amtstrager und Ratien unter Augustus’, ZPE 70
(1987) 203-9

. Fischer, F. ‘P. Silius Nerva, zur Vorgeschichte des Alpenfeldzuges 15 v.

Chr.’, Germania 54 (1976) 147-55

Fischer, T. Das Umland des rémischen Regensburg. 2 vols. (Miinchn.
Beitrage z. Vor- u. Frihgeschichte 42). Munich, 1990

Forschungen zur provinzialrémischen Archaologie in Bayerisch-Schwaben, ed. J.
Bellot, W. Czysz and G. Krahe (Schwabische Geschichtsquellen u.
Forschungen 14). Augsburg, 1985

Frei, B. e¢ al. Das Raterproblem in geschichtlicher, sprachlicher und
archaologischer Sicht (Schriften d. Ratischen Museums Chur 28). Chur,
1984

Frei-Stolba, R. ‘Die rémische Schweiz: ausgewahlte staats- und
verwaltungsrechtliche Probleme im Frihprinzipat’, ANRW HI, 35.1
(1976) 288-403

Frei-Stolba, R. ‘Die Schweiz in rémischer Zeit: der Vorgang der
Provinzialisierung in rechtshistorischer Sicht’, Hist. 25 (1976) 313-55
Frei-Stolba, R. Review of Schon 1986 (E 635), Gnomon 60 (1988) 137-42
Gottlieb, G. et al. (eds.) Geschichte der Stadt Augsburg von der Romerzeit bis
gar Gegenwart. Stuttgart, 1984

Geschichte der Stadt Kempten, ed. V. Dotterweich e¢ al. Kempten, 1989
Haider, P. W. ‘Tirol unter r6mischer Herrschaft’, Geschichte des Landes
Tirol i, ed. J. Fontana ef a/., 127-88; 238ff. Bozen, 1985

Heuberger, R. Ratien im Altertum und Mittelalter, Forschung und
Darstellung. Innsbruck, 1932

Keller, E. Die friibkaiserzeitlichen Kérpergraber von Heimstetten bet Munchen
und die verwandten Funde aus Siidbayern (Minchn. Beitrage z. Vor- u.
Frihgeschichte 37). Munich, 1984

Kellner, H.-J. ‘Zur rémischen Verwaltung in den Zentralalpen’, Bay
Vorgeschichtsbl 39 (1974) 92-104

Kellner, H.-J. Die Romer in Bayern. 4th edn. Munich, 1978

Kellner, H.-J. ‘Die Zeit der rémischen Herrschaft’, Handbuch der
bayerischen Geschichte, ed. M. Spindler, 65-96. znd edn. Munich, 1981
Kellner, H.-J. ‘Ein Jahrzehnt Romerforschung in Bayern (1974-1983)’,
in Kraus, A. (ed.) Land und Reich, Stamm und Nation. Probleme und
Perspektiven bayerischer Geschichte (Festgabe fiir Max Spindler zum 90.
Geburtstag 1) 147-62. Munich, 1984

1086

627.
628.

629.

630.

631.
632.
633.
634.
635.
636.
637.
638.
639.

640.
641.

642.

643.

644.

645.
646.
647.

648.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Lafh, U. ‘Sull’organizzazione amministrativa dell’area alpina nell’eta
giulio-claudia’, CSDIR 7 (1975-6) 391-420

Lafhi, U. ‘Zur Geschichte Vindeliciens unmittelbar nach der r6mischen
Eroberung’, Bay Vorgeschichtsb/ 43 (1978) 19-24

Lafh, U. ‘L’organizzazione dei distretti alpini dopo la conquista’, in
Vacchina, M. (ed.) La Valle 2 Aosta e Parco alpino nella politica del mondo
antico, 62-78. Aosta, 1988

Mackensen, M. Frithkaiserzeitliche Kleinkastelle bei Nersingen und
Burlafingen an der oberen Donau (Minchn. Beitrage z. Vor- u.
Frithgeschichte 41). Munich, 1987

Meyer, E. ‘Romische Zeit’, Handbuch der Schweizer Geschichte 1, 55-92.
Zurich, 1972

Overbeck, B. Geschichte des Alpenrheintals in rimischer Zeit auf Grund der
archdologischen Zeugnisse. 2 vols. (Miinchn. Beitrige z. Vor- u.
Friihgeschichte 20/1). Munich, 1973-82

Overbeck, B. ‘Raetien zur Prinzipatszeit’, ANRW II, 5.2 (1976) 658-89
Die Romer in Schwaben (Jubilaumsausstellung 2000 Jahre Augsburg ...
Bay. Landesamt f. Denkmalpflege, Arbeitsheft 27). Munich, 1985
Schon, F. Der Beginn der rémischen Herrschaft in Ratien. Sigmaringen, 1986
Staehlin, F. Die Schweiz in rémischer Zeit. 3rd edn. Basle, 1948

Ulbert, G. Der Lorengberg bei Epfach, die fribrimische Militarstation
(Minchn. Beitrage z. Vor- u. Friihgeschichte 9). Munich, 1965
Untermann, J. ‘Alpen-Donau-Adria’, Die Sprachen im rimischen Reich der
Kaiserzeit (BJ Beih. 40), 45-63. Cologne-Bonn, 1980

Waasdorp, J. A. ‘Immanes Raeti. A hundred years of Roman defensive
policy in the Alps and Voralpenland’, Talanta 14-15 (1982/3) 33-89
Walser, G. Die rémischen Strassen und Meilensteine in Raetien. Stuttgart, 1983
Werner, J. (ed.) Studien xu Abodiacum-Epfach (Minchn. Beitrige z. Vor-
u. Friihgeschichte 7). Munich, 1964

Winkler, G. ‘Die Statthalter der r6mischen Provinz Raetien unter dem
Prinzipat’, Bay Vorgeschichtsbl 36 (1971) 50-101; 38 (1973) 116-20
Wolff, H. ‘Einige Probleme der Raumordnung im Imperium Romanum,
dargestellt an den Provinzen Obergermanien, Raetien und Noricum’,
Ostbatrische Grenzmarken 28 (1986) 152-77

Wolff, H. ‘Zu den Anfangen des rémischen Raetien’ (Review of Schon
1986 (E 635)), JRA 3 (1990) 407-14

8. THE BALKANS

Alféldy, G. “Die Auxiliartruppen der rémischen Provinz Dalmatien’,
A ArchHung 14 (1962) 259-96 (=D 159, 239-97)

Alféldy, G. ‘Des territoires occupés par les Scordisques’, A AntHung 12
(1964) 107-27

Alféldy, G. ‘Die Namengebung der Urbevélkerung in der rémischen
Provinz Dalmatia’, ByN 15 (1964) 55-104

Alféldy, G. ‘Eine rdémische Strassenbauinschrift aus Salona’,
A ArchHung 16 (1964) 247-56

649.

650.
651.

652.
653.

654.
655.

656.
657.

658.
659.

660.
661.
662.
663.
664.
665.
666.

667.

669.

670.
671.

672.

673.

674.

THE BALKANS 1087

Alféldy, G. ‘Veteranendeduktionen in der Provinz Dalmatien’, Hist. 13
(1964) 167-79 (=D 159, 298-312)

Alféldy, G. ‘Rider’, RE Suppl. 11 (1968) 1207-14

Alféldy, G. ‘Senatoren in der rémischen Provinz Dalmatien’, EpStud 5
(1968) 99-144

Alféldy, G. Noricum. London, 1974

Batovi¢, S. ‘Investigation of the Illyrian settlement at Radovin’, Diadora
4 (1968) 53-70. In Serbo-Croat

Batovic, S. ‘Les vestiges préhistoriques sur archipel de Zadar’, Diadora 6
(1973) 5-165. In Serbo-Croat

Clairmont, C. W. Excavations at Salona, Yugoslavia, 1969-72. Park Ridge,
NJ, 1975

Crisan, I. H. Burebista and his Time. Bucharest, 1978

Curk, I. Mikl. Poetovio I (Katalogi et Monographiae Mus. Nat. Labac.
13). Ljubljana, 1976

Daicoviciu, H. Dacia de la Burebista la cucerirea Romana. Cluj, 1972
Danoff, C. M. ‘Zur Geschichte des westpontischen oinon’, Klio 31 (1938)
436-9

Danov, C. M. ‘Die Thraker auf dem Ostbalkan von der hellenistischen
Zeit bis zur Griindung Konstantinopels’, ANRW II, 7.1 (1979) 21-185
Duianic¢ S. ‘Aspects of Roman mining in Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia
and Moesia Superior’, ANRW II, 6 (1977) 52-94

Egger, R. Die Stadt auf dem Magdalensberg: ein Grosshandelsplatz
(Denkschr. Ost. Akad. phil.-hist. Kl. 79). Vienna, 1961

Fitz, J. ‘La division de l’I//yricum’, Latomus 47 (1988) 13-25
Gajdukevié, F. Das Bosporanische Reich. Berlin, 1971

Garaganin, M. ‘The early Iron Age in the central Balkan area’, CAH
1112.1, 582-618. Cambridge, 1982

Gerov, B. ‘Romische Birgerrechtsverleihung und Kolonisation in
Thrakien von Trajan’, St Clasice 3 (1961) 107-16 (=E 669, 83-92)
Gerov, B. ‘Epigraphische Beitrage zur Geschichte des moesischen Limes
in vorclaudischer Zeit’, A AntHung 15 (1967) 85-105 (=E 669, 147-67)

. Gerov, B. ‘Die Grenzen der rémischen Provinz Thracia bis zur

Griindung des aurelianischen Dakien’, ANRW II, 7.1 (1979) 212-40
Gerov, B. Beitrage zur Geschichte der rimischen Provinzen Moesien und
Thrakien. Gesammelte Aufsdtze. Amsterdam, 1980

Hoddinott, R. F. The Thracians. London, 1981

Klemenc, J. and Saria, B. Archaeologische Karte von Jugoslavien: Blatt Ptuj.
Belgrade—Zagreb, 1936

Kraft, K. Zur Rekrutierung der Alen und Kohorten an Rhein und Donau (Diss.
Bernenses ser. 1, fasc. 3) Berne, 1951

Mari¢, Z. ‘Archaeologische Forschungen auf der Akropolis der
illyrischen Stadt DAORS. ... in OSaniéi bei Stolac’, GZMS 30/31 (1977)
5-99

Matijasi¢, R. ‘La produzione ed il commercio di tegole ad Aquileia’, Vita
Sociale, artistica e commerciale di Aquileia romana 1 (Antichita Altoadriatiche
29). Udine, 1987

1088

675.
676.

677.
678.

679.

680.

681.
682.

683.

684.
685.

686.
687.

688.

689.
Ggo.
691.
692.
693.
694.
695.
696.

697.
698.

699.

Joo.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Mocsy, A. ‘Pannonia’, RE Suppl. 1x (1962) 516-776

Mocsy, A. Gesellschaft und Romanisation in der rémischen Proving Moesia
Superior. Budapest, 1970

Mocsy, A. Pannonia and Upper Moesia. London, 1974

Mocsy, A. ‘Die Einwanderung der Iazygen’, AAntHung 25 (1977)
439-36

Mocsy, A. ‘The civilized Pannonians of Velleius’, in c 274, 169-75.
Gloucester, 1983

Novak, G. ‘La province IIlyricum était-elle au temps d’Octavien
Auguste et de Tibére divisée en Superior provincia Illyricum et Inferior
provincia Illyricum?’, in Chevallier, R. (ed.) Mé/anges Piganiol 111, 1359-
66. Paris, 1966

Papazoglu, F. The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times. Amsterdam,
1978

Papazoglu, F. ‘Quelques aspects de l’histoire de la province de
Macédoine’, ANRW II, 7. 1 (1979) 302-69

Piccottini, G. ‘Die Stadt auf dem Magdalensberg — ein spatkeltisches und
frihroémisches Zentrum im siidlichen Noricum’, ANRW II, 6 (1977)
263-301

Piccottini, G. and Vetters, H. Fuhrer durch die Ausgrabungen auf dem
Magdalensberg. 2nd edn. Klagenfurt, 1981

Pippidi, D. M. Epigraphische Beitrage zur Geschichte Histrias in hellenistischer
und rémischer Zeit. Berlin, 1962

Pippidi, D. M. Contributii la istoria veche a Romaniei. Bucharest, 1967
Polomé, E. C. ‘Balkan Languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-
Moesian)’, CAH 112.1, 866-88. Cambridge, 1982

Rapanic, Z. (ed.) La vallée du fleuve Neretva depuis la préhistoire jusqu’ au début
du Moyen Age (Réunion scientifique Metkovic, 4-7, X 1977, Soc. Arch.
Croat.). Split, 1980

Sadel, J. ‘Keltisches Portorium in den Ostalpen’, Corolla Memoriae Erich
Swoboda Dedicata, 198-204. Graz—Vienna, 1966

Sadel, J. ‘Hiildigung norischer Stimme am Magdalensberg in Karnten’,
Hist. 16 (1967) 70-4

Sadel, J. ‘Emona’, RE Suppl. xr (1968) 540-78

Sagel, J. ‘Trajan’s canal at the “Iron Gate”’, JRS 63 (1973) 80-5

Sagel, J. ‘Siscia’, RE Suppl. x1v (1974) 702-41

Sasel, J. and Weiler, I. ‘Zur Augusteisch-Tiberischen Inschrift von
Emona’, Carnuntum Jahrbuch 1963/4, 40-2. Graz, 1965

Stiglitz, H., Kandler, M. and Jobst, W. ‘Carnuntum’, 4NRI¥ II, 6
(1977) 583-730

Stiptevic, A. The Illyrians: History and Culture. Park Ridge, NJ, 1977
Suit, M. Antitki Grad na istotnom Jadranu. Zagreb, 1976

Sullivan, R. D. “Thrace in the eastern dynastic network’, ANRW II, 7.1
(1979) 186-211

Svoljgak, Dr. ‘The prehistoric settlement at Most na Sot’, Archlug 17
(1976) 13-20

Swoboda, E. Octavian and Illyricum. Vienna, 1932

Jol.
7o2.
703.
7O4.
705.
706.
707.
708.
709.
JI10.

Jil.

712.

713.
714.

715.
716.

717.
718.
719.
720.
721.
722.
723.
724.

725.
726.

AFRICA 1089

Swoboda, E. Forschungen am obermoesischen Limes (Schriften der
Balkankommission: Ant. Abt. 10). Vienna—Leipzig, 1939

Syme, R. Danubian Papers. Bucharest, 1971

Velkov, V. Cities in Thrace and Dacia in Late Antiquity. Amsterdam, 1977
Vulpe, R. and Barnea, I. Din istoria Dobrogei 1. Bucharest, 1968

Wilkes, J. J. ‘27Aavvov — Splonum again’, A AntHung 13 (1965) 111-25
Wilkes, J. J. Dalmatia. London, 1969

Wilkes, J. J. ‘Boundary stones in Roman Dalmatia: 1. The inscriptions’,
ArhVestnik 25 (1974) 258-74

Wilkes, J. J. ‘Romans, Dacians and Sarmatians in the first and early
second centuries’, in C 274, 255-89

Winkler, G. ‘Noricum und Rom’, ANRW II, 6 (1977) 183-262
Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, S. and Kandler, M. Burnum I. Erster Bericht
tiber die Kleinfunde der Grabungen 1973 und 1974 auf dem Forum (Schriften der
Balkankommission, Antiqu. Abt. 14). Vienna, 1979

Zaninovi¢, M. ‘The Economy of Roman Dalmatia’, ANRW II, 6 (1977)
767-809

Zaninovi¢, M. ‘The territory of the Neretva valley as a foothold of
Roman penetration’, in E 688, 173-80

9. AFRICA

Aranegui, C. and Hesnard, A. ‘Magon et les amphores 4 huile 4 Lepcis’,
forthcoming

Bénabou, M. ‘Proconsul et légat; le temoignage de Tacite’, AntAfr 6
(1972) 129-36

Bénabou, M. La résistance africaine a la romanisation. Paris, 1976
Benseddik, N. Les troupes auxiliaires de f'armée romaine en Maurétanie
Césarienne. Alger, 1982

Benseddik, N. and Potter N. ‘Excavations at the forum site at Cherchel,
1977-81’, BAA forthcoming

Beschaouch, A. ‘Mustitana’, Recueil des nouvelles inscriptions de Mustis, cité
romaine de Tunisie. t (Karthago 14). Paris, 1968

Beschaouch, A. ‘Le territoire de Sicca Veneria (El Kef), nouvelle Cirta,
en Numidie Proconsulaire (Tunisie)’, CRAI (1981) 105-22
Broughton, T. R. S. The Romanization of Africa Proconsularis. Repr. New
York, 1968

Broughton, T. R. S. “The territory of Carthage’, Mélanges Marcel Durry,
REL 47 bis (1971) 265-75

Cagnat, R. L’armeée romaine d Afrique et Poccupation militaire de ? Afrique
sous les empereurs. Paris, 1913

Carcopino, J. ‘L’inscription d’ Ain el-Djemala. Contribution 4 histoire
des ‘‘saltus’’ et du colonat partiaire’, MEFRA 26 (1906) 365-81
Chevallier, R. ‘Essai de chronologie des centuriations romaines de
Tunisie’, MEFRA 70 (1958) 61-128

Daniels, C. The Garamantes of Southern Libya. New York, 1970
Debbasch, Y. ‘“Colonia Julia Karthago”’. La vie et les institutions
municipales de la Carthage romaine’, RHD 30-53 (1953) 335-77

1090
727.
728.
729.
730.
731.
732.
733-
734-
735:
736.
737:
738.
739:
749.
741.
742.
743-
744.

745.

746.

747:
748.

749-
750.
751.
752.

753-

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Desanges, J. ‘Le triomphe de Cornelius Balbus’, Rev.Afr 101 (19§7) 5-43
Desanges, J. ‘Les territoires gétules de Juba II’, REA 66 (1964) 33-47
Desanges, J. ‘Un drame africain sous Auguste. Le meurtre du proconsul
L. Cornelius Lentulus par les Nasamons’, in Hommages Renard II (Coll.
Latomus 102) 197-213. Brussels, 1969

Faur, J.-C. ‘Caligula et la Maurétanie, la fin de Ptolémée’, K/io 55 (1973)
249-71

Février, P.-A. ‘Le culte des Cereres en Afrique’, BSN_AF (1975) 39-43
Fishwick, D. ‘The annexation of Mauretania’, Hist. 20 (1971) 467-87
Fishwick, D. and Shaw, B. D. ‘The era of the Cereres’, Hist.27 (1978)
343-54

Flach, D. ‘Inschriftenuntersuchungen zum rémischen Kolonat in
Nordafrika’, Chiron 8 (1978) 441-92

Gascou, J. La politique municipale de empire romaine en Afrique proconsulaire
de Trajan a Septime-Sévére. Rome, 1972

Gascou, J. ‘Les curies africaines: origine punique ou italienne?’ AntAfr
10 (1976) 33-48

Gascou, J. ‘Les pagi Carthaginois’ in Février, P.-A. and Leveau, P. (eds.)
Villes et campagnes dans [ empire romain, 139-75. Aix-en-Provence, 1980
Gascou, J. ‘La politique municipale de Rome en Afrique du Nord: 1. De
la mort d’Auguste au début du III* siécle’, ANRW II, (1982) 136-229
Gascou, J. ‘Pagus et castellum dans la confédération cirtéenne’, AntAfr
19 (1983) 175-207

Gascou, J. ‘Les sacerdotes Cererum de Carthage’, Ant.Afr 23 (1987) 95-128
Gsell, S. Histoire de ? Afrique du Nord, vit. 2nd edn. Paris, 1930
Gutsfeld, A. Rémmische Herrschaft und einheimischer Widerstand in
Nordafrika. Militdrische Auseinandersetzungen Roms mit den Nomaden.
Stuttgart, 1989

Haywood, R. M. ‘Roman Africa’. Part I of ESAR tv. Reprint. New
Jersey, 1959

Heurgon, J. ‘L’agronome Carthaginois Magon et ses traducteurs en latin
et en grec’, CR AI (1976) 441-56

Hurst, H. ‘Fouilles britanniques au port circulaire et quelques idées sur le
développement de la Carthage romaine’, Cahiers des Etudes Anciennes 17
(1985) 143-56

Kehoe, D. P. The Economics of Agriculture on Roman Imperial Estates in
North Africa. Gottingen, 1988

Kotula, T. Les curies municipales en Afrique romaine. Warsaw, 1968
Lancel, S. (ed.) Histoire et archéologie de ? Afrique du Nord. II* Colloque
International. Grenoble. 1983. Bull. Arch. du Comité des Trav. Hist. 19 B.
Paris, 1985

Lassére, J.-M. Ubique populus. Paris, 1977

Le Glay, M. Saturne africain. Histoire. Paris, 1966

Leschi, L. Etades & épigraphie, f archéologie et d histoire africaines. Paris, 1957
Leveau, P. Caesarea de Maurétanie: une ville romaine et ses campagnes. Rome,
1984

Mackie, N. ‘Augustan colonies in Mauretania’, Hist. 32 (1983) 332-58

754-

756.

757:
758.

758A.
759-
760.
761.
762.

763.

764.
765.
766.
767.
768.
769.

779.

771.

772.
773.
774-
775.

775A.

CYRENE 1091

Nerom, C. van ‘Colonia Julia Concordia Karthago’, Hommages M. Renard
(Coll. Latomus 102), 11 767-76. Brussels, 1969

. Pflaum, H.-G. ‘La romanisation de l’ancien territoire de la Carthage

punique 4 la lumiére des découvertes épigraphiques récentes’, AntAfr 4
(1970) 75-118 ;

Picard, G. C. ‘Néron et le blé d’Afrique’, Cahiers de Tunisie 14 (1956)
163—

Picard, G. C. Les religions de ? Afrique antique. Paris, 1954

Picard, G. C. ‘L’administration territoriale de Carthage’, Mélanges
Piganiol 111 1257-65. Paris, 1966

Picard, G. C. Historie et archéologie de [Afrique du Nord. 1ére College
International, 1981. Bull. Arch. du Comité des Trav. Hist. 17 8. Paris,
1984

Poinssot, C. Les ruines de Dougga. Tunis, 1958

Romanelli, P. Storia delle provincie romane dell Africa. Rome, 1959
Salama, P. ‘La colonie de Rusguniae’, MEFRA 67 (1955) 127-48
Saumagne, C. ‘Colonia Julia Karthago’, Cahiers de Tunisie 10 (1962)
463-71

Smadja, E. ‘Remarques sur les débuts du culte impérial en Afrique sous le
régne d’Auguste’, in Religions, pouvoir, rapports sociaux (Ann. Litt. Univ.
Besangon 237) 151-69. Paris, 1980

Syme, R. ‘Tacfarinas, the Musulami and Thubursicum’, in Studies in
Honor of A. C. Johnson, 113-30. Princeton, 1951. (=A 94, I, 218-30)
Teutsch, L. Das rémische Stadtewesen in Nordafrika in der Zeit von C.
Gracchus bis zum Tode des Kaisers Augustus. Berlin, 1962

Thébert, Y. ‘La romanisation d’une cité indigéne d’Afrique’, MEFRA
85 (1973) 247-312

Thompson, L. A. and Ferguson, J. Africa in Classical Antiquity. Ibadan,
1969

Trousset, P. ‘Les bornes du Bled Segui nouveaux apergus sur la
centuriation romaine du sud Tunisien’, AntAfr 12 (1978) 125-77
Werff, J. H. van der. ‘Amphores de tradition punique 4 Uzita’, B.A Besch
52/53 (1977/8) 171-98

Whittaker, C. R. ‘Land and labour in North Africa’, K/io 60 (1978)
331-62

Io. CYRENE

Alféldi, A. ‘Commandants de la flotte romaine stationnée 4 Cyréne sous
Pompée, César et Octavien’, Mélanges J. Carcopino, 2225-43. Paris, 1966
Anti, C. Seulture greche e romane di Cirene. Padua, 1939

Applebaum, S. Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene. Leiden, 1979

Area Handbook for Libya. Washington, 1969

Bacchielli, L. L’ Agora di Cirene: 11.1. L’area settentrionale del lato ovest della
platea inferiore. Rome, 1981

Barker, G., Lloyd, J. A. and Reynolds, J. (eds.) Cyrenaica in Antiquity
(BAR International series 236). Oxford, 1985

1092

776.

777-

778.

779-
780.
J80A.
781.
782.

783.
784.
785.
786.
787.

788.

789.
790.

791.

792.

793-

793A.
794:

795:
796.

797-

798.
799-

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Bowsky, M. Baldwin, ‘M. Tittius Sex. f. Aem. and the Jews of Berenice’,
AJPh 108 (1987) 494-510

Chamoux, F. Cyréne sous la monarchie des Battiades, Part 11, chs. 1, 2. Paris,
1953

Desanges, J. ‘Un drame africain sous Auguste, le meurtre du proconsul
L. Cornelius Lentulus par les Nasamons’, Hommages Renard 11 (Coll.
Latomus 102) 197-213. Brussels, 1969

Economic Development of Libya. Baltimore, 1960

Ermeti, A. L. L’ Agora di Cirene: 111. 1 I! monumento navale. Rome, 1981
Gadullah, F. (ed.) Libya in History (Historical conference held at
Benghazi, March 1968)

Goodchild, R. G. ‘Roman milestones in Cyrenaica’, PBSR 18 (1950)
83-91

Goodchild, R. G. Tabula Imperii Romani, sheet H.1.34. Cyrene. London,

19534

Goodchild, R. G. Cyrene and Apollonia, an Historical Guide. Cyrene, 1963
Goodchild, R. G. Kyrene und Apollonia. Zurich, 1971

Humphrey, J. H. (ed.) Apollonia, the Port of Cyrene, Excavations by the
University of Michigan 1967-7. Tripoli, 1976

Huskinson, J. Roman Sculpture from Cyrenaica in the British Museum.
London, 1975

Johnson, D. L. Jabal al-Akhdar, Cyrenaica: an Historical Geography of
Settlement and Livelihood. Chicago, 1973

Jones, G. D. B. and Little, J. H. ‘Coastal settlement in Cyrenaica’, JRS 61
(1971) 64-79

Kraeling, C. H. Ptolemais, City of the Libyan Pentapolis. Chicago, 1962
Laronde, A. Cyréne et la Libye hellénistique, chs. 13, 14, 18. Paris, 1987
Laronde, A. ‘La Cyrénaique romaine des origines 4 la fin des Sévéres, 96
av. J.-C.-235 ap. J.-C”, ANRW II, 10. 1 (1988) 1006-2064

Laronde, A. Greeks and Libyans in Cyrenaica (Proceedings of the 1st
Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology 1985), 169-80. Canberra,
1990

Lloyd, J. A. (ed.) Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice) Tripoli:
1. Buildings, Coins, Inscriptions, Architectural Decoration (1977); 1. Economic
Life at Berenice, Sculpture and Terracottas, Coarse Pottery (1979); ul. 1. Fine
pottery (1985); 11. 2. Lamps (1985). Tripoli

Lideritz, G. Die Juden der Cyrenaika: Zeugnisse zur Sozial-und
Kulturgeschichte einer religiisen Minderbeit in der Antike. Taibingen, 1993
Masson, O. ‘Grecs et Libyens en Cyréne, d’aprés les temoignages de
Pépigraphie’, AntAfr 10 (1976) 49-62

Mingazzini, P. L’Insula di Giasone Magno. Rome, 1966

Paribeni, E. Catalogo delle sculture di Cirene; statue e rilievi di carattere
religioso. Rome, 1959

Perl, G. ‘Die romischen Provinzbeamten in Cyrenae und Creta’, Kéio 52
(1970) 319-543 53 (1971) 370-9

Pernier, L. I/ sempio e Paltare di Apollo a Cirene. Bergamo, 1935

Pesce, G. I/ Palazzo delle Colonne in Tolemaide di Cirenaica. Rome, 1950

800.

801.
802.

803.

804.
804A.

805.
805A.
806.
806A.
807.
807A.

808.
809.

816.

817.
818.

819.
820.

821.
822.
823.

GREECE AND ASIA MINOR 1093

Reddé, M. Prospection des vallées du nord de la Libye (1979-80). La région de la
Syrte a Pépoque romaine (Armée romaine et les provinces 4). Paris, 1988
Reynolds, J. (ed.) Libyan Studies. London, 1976

Reynolds, J. M. ‘Senators originating in the provinces of Egypt and of
Crete and Cyrene’, in D 42, 671-83

Romanelli, P. La Cirenaica Romana. Verbania, 1935. (See also his
translated résumé in C_AH x! (1936) 667-75)

Rosenbaum, E. A Catalogue of Cyrenaican Portrait Sculpture. London, 1969
Smith, R. M. and Porcher, E. A. A History of the Recent Discoveries at
Cyrene. London, 1864

Stucchi, S. L’ Agora di Cirene:1. I lati Norde Est della platea inferiore. Rome,
1965

Stucchi, S. (ed.) Cirene 1957-66. Un decennio di attivita della missione
archeologica italiana a Cirene. Tripoli, 1967

Stucchi, S. ‘L’ Architettura Cirenaica. Rome, 1975

Stucchi, S. (ed.) Giornata Lincea sulla Archeologia Cirenaica. Rome, 1990
Stucchi, S. and Bacchielli, L. L’ Agora di Cirene: 11. 4. I/ lato sud della platea
inferiore e il lato nord della terrazza superiore. Rome, 1983

Thrige, J. P. Res Cyrenensium. Reprinted Verbania, 1940

Vitali, L. Fonti per la storia della religione cirenaica. Padua, 1932

White, D. The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene,
Libya, Final Reports: 1 (1984); 11 (1985); 111 (1987). Philadelphia

Il. GREECE AND ASIA MINOR

. Alcock, S. E. ‘Archaeology and imperialism: Roman expansion and the

Greek city’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2 (1989) 87-135

. Alcock, S. E. Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece. Cambridge,

1993
. Baladié, R. Le Péloponnése de Strabon: Etude de géographie historique. Paris,

1980

. Bean, G. E. Aegean Turkey, an Archaeological Guide. London, 1966
. Bean, G. E. Turkey's Southern Shore, an Archaeological Guide. London, 1968
. Bean, G. E. Turkey Beyond the Maeander, an Archaeological Guide. London,

1971
Bintliff, J. and Snodgrass, A. ‘The Cambridge/Bradford Boeotia
Expedition: the first four years’, JF_A 12 (1985) 123-61

Bowersock, G. W. ‘Eurycles of Sparta’, JRS 51 (1961) 212-18
Bowersock, G. W. ‘Zur Geschichte des r6mischen Thessaliens’, RAM
108 (1965) 277-89

Box, H. ‘Roman citizenship in Laconia’, JRS 21 (1931) 200-14
Broughton, T. R. S. ‘Roman landholding in Asia Minor’, TAPA 65
(1934) 207-39

Broughton, T. R. S. ‘Roman Asia’, in p 128, Iv

Chaumont, M. L. ‘Armenia’, ANRW II, 9 (1976) 73-84

Daux, G. ‘Les Empereurs romains et l’Amphictionie pyléo-delphique’,
CRAI (1975) 348-62

1094
824.

825.
826.

827.

828.
829.

830.
831.
832.
833.
834.
835.

836.

837.
838.
839.
840.
841.
842.

843.

844.

845.

846.
847.

848.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Day, J. An Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination. New
York, 1942

Erim, K. T. Aphrodisias. City of Venus Aphrodite. London, 1986
Fossey, J. M. ‘The cities of the Kopiis in the Roman period’, ANRWII,
7-1 (1979) 549-91

Frantz, A. The Athenian Agora: xxiv. Late Antiquity: A.D. 267-700.
Princeton, 1988

Fraser, P. M. and Bean, G. E. The Rhodian Peraea and Islands. Oxford, 1954
French, D. H. ‘The Roman road system of Asia Minor’, ANRW II, 7.2
(1980) 698-729

Geagan, D. J. The Athenian Constitution after Sulla (Hesperia Suppl. 12).
Princeton, 1967

Geagan, D. J. ‘Roman Athens, some aspects of life and culture: 1. 86 B.c.—
A.D. 267’, ANRW II, 7.1 (1979) 371-437 (bibliography)

Graindor, P. Athénes sous Auguste. Cairo, 1927

Graindor, P. Athénes de Tibére a Trajan. Cairo, 1931

Groag, E. Die rémischen Reichsbeamten von Achaia bis auf Diokletian. Ak.
Wiss. Wien, Schriften der Balkankommission, Ant. Abt. 9. Vienna, 1939
Gwatkin, W. E. Cappadocia as a Roman Procuratorial Province. Univ.
Missouri Stud. V, 4. Columbia, 1930

Halfmann, H. ‘Die Senatoren aus den kleinasiatischen Provinzen des
rémischen Reiches vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert (Asia, Pontus-Bithynia,
Lycia-Pamphylia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Cilicia)’, in D 42, 603~50
Hanfmann, G. M. A. Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times: Results of the
Archaeological Exploration of Sardis 1958-1975. Cambridge, MA, 1983
Harris, B. F. ‘Bithynia: Roman sovereignty and the survival of
Hellenism’, A NRW II, 7.2 (1980) 857-901

Hellenkemper, H. ‘Zur Entwicklung des Stadtbildes in Kilikien’,
ANRW II, 7.2 (1980) 1262-83 (bibliography)

Hoben, W. Untersuchungen zur Stellung kleinasiatischer Dynasten in den
Machthkampfen der ausgehenden Republik. Mainz, 1969

Hoff, M. C..‘Civil disobedience and unrest in Augustan Athens’, Hesperia
58 (1989) 267-76

Holtheide, B. Rémische Birgerrechtspolitik und rimische Neubiirger in der
Proving Asia. Diss., Heidelberg, 1983

Jameson, S. A. ‘Lycia and Pamphylia, an historical review’, in Campbell,
A. C. (ed.) History of Turkey, 11-31. Tripoli, 1971

Jameson, S. A. ‘The Lycian League: some problems in_ its
administration’, ANRW II, 7.2 (1980) 832—-55

Kahrstedt, U. ‘Die Territorien von Patrai und Nicopolis in der
Kaiserzeit’. Hist. 1 (1950) 549-61

Kahrstedt, U. ‘Zwei Probleme im kaiserlichen Griechenland’, SyabOs/
28 (1950) 70-5

Kahrstedt, U. Das wirtschaftliche Gesicht Griechenlands in der Kaiserzeit:
Kleinstadt, Villa, und Doman (Diss. Bern I, 7). Berne, 1954

Knibbe, D. and Alzinger, W. ‘Ephesos vom Beginn der rémischen
Herrschaft in Kleinasien bis zum Ende der Prinzipatszeit’, ANRW II,

849.
850.
851.
852.
853.
854.

855.

856.

857.
857A.
858.
859.
860.
861.
862.
863.
864.
865.
866.
867.
868.
869.
870.
871.
872.
873.

874.

GREECE AND ASIA MINOR 1095

7.2 (1980) 748-830

Larsen, J. A. O. “The policy of Augustus in Greece’, AC/ass (1959) 123
Larsen, J. A. O. ‘Roman Greece’, in D 128 11, 259-498

Levick, B. Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor. Oxford, 1967

Macro, A. D. ‘The cities of Asia Minor under the Roman Imperium’,
ANRW II, 7.2 (1980) 658-97

Magie, D. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the end of the Third Century after
Christ. Princeton, 1950

Mitchell, S. ‘Legio VII and the garrison of Augustan Galatia’, CQ 26
(1976) 298-305

Mitchell, S. ‘Roman residents and Roman property in southern Asia
Minor’, Congresso internazionale di archeologia classica X: Ankara-Izmir 1973
3, 311-18. Ankara, 1978

Mitchell, S. ‘Archaeology in western and southern Asia Minor 1971~8:
1979-84’ in Archaeological Reports: Soc. Promotion of Hell. Stud. and British
School at Athens, 59-90. London, 1979, 1985

Mitchell, S. ‘Iconium and Ninica: two double communities in Roman
Asia Minor’, Hist. 28 (1979) 409-38

Mitchell, §. Anatolia: Law, Men and Gods in Asia Minor. 2 vols. Oxford,
1993

Mitford, T. B. ‘A Cypriot oath of allegiance to Tiberius’, JRS 50 (1960)

76-9

Mitford, T. B. ‘Roman Cyprus’, ANRW II, 7.2 (1980) 1286-384
(bibliography)

Mitford, T. B. ‘Roman Rough Cilicia’, ANRW II, 7.2 (1980) 1230-61
Oliver, J. H. ‘Panachaeans and Panhellenes’, Hesperia 47 (1978) 185-91
Oliver, J. H. ‘Roman Senators from Greece and Macedon’, in p 42,
583—Go2z

Olshausen, E. ‘Pontos und Rom (63 v. Chr.—64 n. Chr.)’, ANRW II, 7.2
(1980) 903-12

Pekary, T. ‘Kleinasien unter rOmischer Herrschaft’, ANRW II, 7.2
(1980) 595-657 (bibliography)

Radt, W. Pergamon. Geschichte und Bauten, Funde und Erforschung einer
antiken Metropole. Cologne, 1988

Rawlinson, H. C. ‘Memoir on the site of the Atropenian Ecbatana’,
JRGeogS 10 (1841) 65-158

Rigsby, K. J. ‘Cnossus and Capua’, TAPA 106 (1976) 314-30

Robert, L. Valles P Asie Mineure. 2nd edn. Paris, 1962

Robert, J. and L. La Carie 11. Paris, 1952

Rostovtzeff, M. ‘Augustus und Athen’, Festschrift O. Hirschfeld, Klio 3
(1903) 303-11

Sanders, I. F. Roman Crete. Warminster, 1982

Schmitt, H. H. Rom und Rhodos. Munich, 1957

Shear, T. L. ‘Athens: from city state to provincial town’, Hesperia 50
(1981) 356-77

Sherk, R. K. The Legates of Galatia from Augustus to Diocletian. Johns
Hopkins Univ. Stud. in Hist. and Pol. Science 69, 2. Baltimore, 1951

1096
875.
876.
877.
878.

879.
880.

881.
882.
883.
884.
885.
886.

887.

888.
889.
890.
891.
892.
893.
894.
895.

896.

897.

898.
899.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Sherk, R. K. ‘Roman Galatia: the governors from 25 B.C.-A.D. 114’,
ANRW I, 7.2 (1980) 954-1052

Speidel, M. ‘Legionaries from Asia Minor’, ANRW II, 7.2 (1980)
730-46

Strubbe, J. ‘A group of imperial estates in central Phrygia’, AncSoc 6
(1975) 228-50

Sullivan, R. D. ‘The dynasty of Commagene’, ANRW II, 8 (1977)
732-98

Sullivan, R. D. ‘Dynasts in Pontus’, ANRW II, 7.2 (1980) 913-30
Sullivan, R. D. ‘The dynasty of Cappadocia’, ANRW II, 7.2 (1980)
1125-68

Syme, R. ‘Galatia and Pamphylia under Augustus: the governorships of
Piso, Quirinius and Silvanus’, K/io 27 (1934) 122-48

Syme, R. ‘Pamphylia from Augustus to Vespasian’, K/io 30 (1937) 227ff
(=A 94, 1, 42-6)

Teja, R. ‘Die rémische Provinz Kappadokien in der Prinzipatszeit’,
ANRW II, 7.2 (1980) 1083-124

Travlos, J. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens. London, 1971
Vogel-Weidemann, U. Die Statthalter von Africa und Asia in den Jahren 1g—
68 n. Chr.: eine Untersuchung zum V erhaltnis Princeps und Senat. Antiquitas I,
31. Bonn, 1982

Wallace, P. W. ‘Strabo’s description of Boiotia, a commentary’, Bibi. der
Klass. Altertumswissenschaften n.s. 2, 65. Heidelberg, 1979

Wiseman, J. ‘Corinth and Rome’, ANRW II, 7.1 (1979) 438-548

12. EGYPT

el-Abbadi, M. A. H. ‘The Alexandrian citizenship’, JE.A 48 (1962)
106~23

Bagnall, R. S. ‘Publius Petronius, Augustan prefect of Egypt’, YCS 28
(1985) 85-93

Barns, J. W. B. Egyptians and Greeks (Papyrologica Bruxellensia 14).
Brussels, 1978

Bastianini, G. ‘Lista dei prefetti d’Egitto dal 30a al 299p’, ZPE 17 (1975)
263-328

Bastianini, G. ‘Aggiunte e correzioni’, ZPE 38 (1980) 75-89

Bell, H. I. ‘Alexandria ad Aegyptum’, JRS 36 (1946) 130-2

Bell, H. I. Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Liverpool, 1953

Bell, H. I. Egypt from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest. Oxford,
1956

Bingen, J. ‘L’ Egypte gréco-romaine et la problématique des interactions
culturelles’, Proceedings of the XVI International Congress of Papyrology
(American Studies in Papyrology 22), 3-18. Toronto, 1981

Bonneau, D. La crue du Nil, divinité égyptienne a travers mille ans d histoire
(332 av.—641 ap. J.-C.). Paris, 1964

Bonneau, D. Le fise et le Nil. Paris, 1971

Bowman, A. K. ‘A letter of Avidius Cassius?’, JRS 60 (1970) 20-6

goo.

gol.
go2.

903.
904.

995.

906.

907.
908.

9°9-
glo.

gil.

913.
914.

915.

916.

917.

918.

919.

921.
922.

923.

EGYPT 1097

Bowman, A. K. The Town Councils of Roman Egypt (American Studies in
Papyrology 11). Toronto, 1971

Bowman, A. K. Egypt after the Pharaohs. 2nd edn. Oxford, 1990
Bowman, A. K. ‘Public buildings in Roman Egypt,” JRA 5 (1992)
495-503

Bowman, A. K. and Rathbone, D. W. ‘Cities and administration in
Roman Egypt’, JRS 82 (1992) 107-27

Braunert, H. ‘IDIA: Studien zur Bevdélkerungsgeschichte des
ptolemdischen und rémischen Agypten’, JJP 9-10°(195 5-6) 211-328
Braunert, H. Die Binnenwanderung: Studien zur Sozialgeschichte Agyptens in
der Ptolemderzeit und Kaiserzeit (Bonner Historische Forschungen 26).
Bonn, 1964

Brunt, P. A. ‘The administrators of Roman Egypt’, JRS 65 (1975) 124-
47 (=(with addenda) a 12, 215-54, 514-15)

Butzer, K. W. Early Hydraulic Civilisation in Egypt. Chicago, 1976
Cavenaile, R. ‘Prosopographie de l’armée romaine d’Egypte d’Auguste 4
Dioclétien’, Aegyptus 50 (1970) 213-320

Chalon, G. L’édit de Tiberius Julius Alexander. Olten—Lausanne, 1964
Criniti, N. ‘Supplemento alla prosopografia dell’esercito romano
d’Egitto da Augusto a Diocleziano’, Aegyptus 53 (1973) 93-158

Criniti, N. ‘Sulle forze armate romane d’Egitto: osservazioni e nuove
aggiunti prosopografiche’, Aegyptus 59 (1979) 190-261

. Daris, S. ‘Le truppe ausiliarie romane in Egitto,’ ANRW II, 1o. 1 (1988)

724-42

Davies, R. W. ‘Minicius Iustus and a Roman military document from
Egypt’, Aegyptus 53 (1973) 75-92

Devijver, H. ‘The Roman army in Egypt (with special reference to the
militiae equestres)’, ANRW II, 1 (1974) 452-92

Devijver, H. De Aegypto et exercitu romano sive prosopographia militiarum
equestrium quae ab Augusto ad Gallienum seu statione seu origine ad Aegyptum
pertinebant (Studia Hellenistica 22). Louvain, 1975

Devijver, H. ‘L’Egypte et l’histoire de l’armée romaine’, in Criscuolo, L.
and Geraci, G. (eds.) Egittoe storia antica dall ellenismo all eta araba, Atti del
colloguio internazionale, Bologna, 31 -Agosto—2 Settembre, 1987, 47-54.
Bologna, 1989

Dobson, B. ‘The praefectus castrorum Aegypti —a reconsideration’, CE
57 (1982) 322-37

Duncan- Jones, R. P. ‘The price of wheat in Egypt under the Principate’,
Chiron 6 (1976) 241-62

Evans, J. A. S. ‘A social and economic history of an Egyptian temple in
the Greco-Roman period’, YCS 17 (1961) 145-283

. Foti Talamanca, G. Ricerche sul processo nelP Egitto greco-romano: 1.

L’organizzazione del ‘Conventus’ del‘ Praefectus Aegypt?: 1. 1 L’introduzione
del giudizio. Milan, 1974-9

Fraser, P. M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford, 1972

Gara, A. Prosdiagraphomena e circolazione monetaria. Milan, 1976

Gara, A. ‘Aspetti di economia monetaria dell’Egitto romano,’ ANRW
II, 10. 1 (1988) 912-51

1098

924.

925.
926.
927.

928.

929-
930.

931.

932.

933-

934-

939-

940.
941.

942.
943-

944.

945-

946.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Geraci, G. Genesi della provincia romana d Egitto. Bologna, 1983

Geraci, G. ‘Publio Petronio, il genetliaco di Augusto e il “Faraone
Cesare”’, ZPE 65 (1986) 195-6

Geraci, G. ‘’Emapyia 5€ viv ori. La concezione augustea del governo
d’Egitto’, ANRW II, 10.1 (1988) 383-411

Grimm, G., Heinen, H. and Winter E. (eds.) Alexandrien (Aegyptiaca
Treverensia 1). Trier, 1981

Grimm, G., Heinen, H. and Winter E. (eds.) Das rémisch-byzantinische
Agypten, Akten des internationalen Symposions 26-30 September 1978 in Trier
(Aegyptiaca Treverensia 2). Trier, 1983

Hagedorn, D. ‘Zum Amt der dioiketes im romischen Agypten’, YCS 28
(1985) 167-210

Hanson, A. E. ‘Publius Ostorius Scapula. Augustan Prefect of Egypt’,
ZPE 47 (1982) 243~53

Hanson, A. E. ‘Two copies of a petition to the Prefect’, ZPE 47 (1982)
233-43

Hanson, A. E. ‘The keeping of records at Philadelphia in the Julio-
Claudian period and the “Economic Crisis” under Nero’, Proceedings of
the XVII International Congress of Papyrology 1, 261-77. Athens, 1988
Haycock, B. G. ‘The later phases of Meroitic civilization’, JEA 53 (1967)
107-20

Hobson, D. W. ‘Women as property owners in Roman Egypt’, TAPA
113 (1983) 311-21

. Hobson, D. W. ‘The role of women in the economic life of Roman

Egypt: a case study from first century Tebtunis’, CV 28, n.s. 3 (1984)
373-89

. Hohlwein, N. Le stratége du nome (Papyrologica Bruxellensia 9). Brussels,

1969

. Hopkins, K. ‘Brother-sister marriage in Roman Egypt’, CSSH 22.3

(1980) 303-54

. Humbert, M. La Juridiction du préfet d’ Egypte d’ Auguste a Dioclétien. Paris,

1964

Jameson, S. ‘Chronology of the campaigns of Aelius Gallus and C.
Petronius’, JRS 58 (1968) 71-84

Johnson, A. C. Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian. (= D 128, 11)
Kennedy, D. L. “The composition of a military work party in Egypt (ILS
2483, Coptos)’, JE.A 71 (1985) 156-Go

Kirwan, L. P. ‘Rome beyond the southern Egyptian frontier’, PBA 53
(1977) 13-31

Lesquier, J. L’armée romaine P Egypte d Auguste a Dioclétien (IFAO
Mémoires 41). Cairo, 1918

Lewis, N. ‘Graeco-Roman Egypt: fact or fiction?’, Proceedings of the XII
International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 1968 (American Studies in
Papyrology 7), 3-14. Toronto, 1970

Lewis, N. The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt (Papyrologica
Florentina 11). Florence, 1982

Lewis, N. Life in Egypt under Roman Rule. Oxford, 1983

947.

948.
949.

950.
951.

952.

954.
955.

956.

957-

958.

959-

960.

961.

963.
964.
965.

. Skeat, T. C. ‘The Augustan era in Egypt’, ZPE 53 (1983) 241-4
967.

968.
969.

EGYPT 1099

Lewis, N. ‘The romanity of Roman Egypt: a growing consensus’, A##i
del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia, 1077-84. Naples, 1984
Maehler, H. G. T. ‘Egypt under the last Ptolemies’, BICS 30 (1983) 1-16
Meredith, D. ‘The Roman remains in the eastern desert of Egypt’, JEA
38 (1952) 94-111; 39 (1953) 95—106

Milne, J. G. A History of Egypt under Roman Rule, London, 1924
Modrzejewski, J. ‘La régle de droit dans l’Egypte romaine’, Proceedings of
the XII International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor, 1968 (American
Studies in Papyrology 7), 317-77. Toronto, 1970

Montevecchi, O. ‘L’amministrazione dell’Egitto sotto i Giulio-Claudi,’
ANRW II, 10.1 (1988) 412-71

. Nelson, C. A. Status Declarations in Roman Egypt (American Studies in

Papyrology 9). Toronto, 1979

Oertel, F. Die Liturgie. Leipzig, 1917

Pack, R. A. The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt.
2nd edn. Ann Arbor, 1965

Parassoglou, G. M. Imperial Estates in Roman Egypt (American Studies in
Papyrology 18). Toronto, 1978

Pflaum, H.-G. ‘Un nouveau diplome militaire d’un soldat de l’armée
d’Egypte’, Syria 44 (1967), 339-62 (=Scripta Varia 11, 269-94. Paris,
1981)

Porter, B. and Moss, R. L. B. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient
Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings vu. Oxford, 1927-51;
2nd edn. of vols. 1-111, Oxford, 1960-78

Préaux, C. ‘L’attache 4 la terre: continuités de "Egypte ptolémaique 4
Egypte romaine’, in E 928, 1-5

Rathbone, D. W. “The ancient economy and Graeco-Roman Egypt’, in
Criscuolo, L. and Geraci, G. (eds.) Egitto e storia antica dall ellenismo all eta
araba, Atti del colloquio internazionale, Bologna, 31 Agosto—2 Settembre, 1987,
159-76. Bologna, 1989

Rathbone, D. W. ‘Villages, land and population in Graeco-Roman
Egypt,’ PCPAS (1990) 103-42

. Rathbone, D. W. ‘Egypt, Augustus and Roman taxation’, CCG 4 (1993)

81-112

Rowlandson, J. L. Landowners and Tenants in Roman Egypt: the Social
Relations of Agriculture in the Oxyrhynchite Nome. Oxford, 1996

Seidl, E. Rechtsgeschichte Agyptens als rémische Proving: die Bebauptung des
dgyptischen Rechts neben den romischen. St Augustin, 1973

Sijpesteijn, P. J. Customs Duties in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Amsterdam, 1987

Stead, M. ‘The high-priest of Alexandria and all Egypt’, Proceedings of the
XVI International Congress of Papyrology (American Studies in Papyrology
23), 411-18. Chico, 1981

Speidel, M. ‘Nubia’s Roman garrison’, ANRW II, 10. 1 (1988) 767-98
Speidel, M. P. ‘Augustus’ deployment of the legions in Egypt’, Chronique
@ Egypte 57 (1982) 120-4 (=D 235, 317-21)

1100

97°

97.
972.

973-

974.

975-

976.
977:
978.
979-
980.
981.

982.

983.

984.

985.
986.
987.
988.

989.

99°.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

. Straus, J. A. ‘L’esclavage dans PEgypte romaine,’ ANRW Il, ro. 1
(1988) 841-911

Strocka, V. M. ‘Augustus als Pharao’, Exkones: Studien... H. Jucker
gewidmet (Antike Kunst Beih. 12) 177-80. Bern, 1980

Swarney, P. R. The Ptolemaic and Roman Idios Logos (American Studies in
Papyrology 8). Toronto, 1970

Thomas, J. D. The Epistrategos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt: 1. The
Ptolemaic Epistrategos, 11. The Roman Epistrategos (Papyrologica
Coloniensia 6). 1975-82

Thomas, J. D. ‘Compulsory public service in Roman Egypt’, in E 928,
35-9

Tomsin, A. ‘Etude sur les presbyteroi des villages de la chora égyptienne’,
Academie royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et
politiques, Bulletin 38 (1952) 95-130, 467-532

Torok, L. ‘Geschichte Meroes. Ein Beitrag tiber die Quellenlage und den
Forschungsstand’, ANRW II, 10.1 (1988) 107-341

Turner, E. G. ‘Roman Oxyrhynchus’, JE.A 38 (1952) 78-93

Turner, E. G. ‘Oxyrhynchus and Rome’, HSCP 79 (1975) 1-24
Wallace, S. L. Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian. Princeton,
1938

Weingartner, D. G. Die Agyptenreise des Germanicus (Papyrologische
Texte und Abhandlungen 11). Bonn, 1969

West, L. C. and Johnson, A. C. Currency in Roman and Byzantine Egypt.
Princeton, 1944

Whitehorne, J. E. G. ‘More about L. Pompeius Niger, legionary
veteran’, Proceedings of the XVIII International Congress of Papyrology 11,
445-50. Athens, 1988

Whitehorne, J. E. G. ‘Recent research on the strategi of Roman Egypt (to
1985)’, ANRW u, 10. 1 (1988) 598-617

Wolff, H.-J. Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Agyptens in der Zeit der
Ptolemdaer und des Prinzipats: 11. Organisation und Kontrolle des privaten
Rechtsverkehrs (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 10). Munich, 1978

13. SYRIA

Balty, J. and J. C. ‘Apamée de Syrie, archéologie et histoire, 1. Des
origines a la Tétrarchie’, ANRW I, 8 (1978) 103-34

Bawden, G. ‘Khief El-Zarah and the nature of the Dedonite hegemony in
the al- ‘Ula oasis’, Atlal 3 (1399 A-H.—1979 A.D.), 63-72

Berchem, D. van. “Le plan de Palmyre’, Palmyre. Bilan et Perspectives, 165—
73. Strasburg, 1976

Bietenhard, H. ‘Die syrische Dekapolis von Pompeius bis Traian’,
ANRW II, 8 (1977) 220-61

Bintliff, J. L. “Climatic change, archaeology and Quaternary science in
the eastern Mediterranean region’, in Harding, A. (ed.) Climatic Change in
Later Prebistory, 143—61. Edinburgh, 1982

Bowersock, G. W. Roman Arabia. Cambridge, MA, 1983

991.
992.

993-

994-

996.
997-

998.

999-
1000.

1001.
1002.
1003.
1004.
1005.
1006.

1007.
1008.

1008A.
1008B.
1009.
1010.
101.
1012.

1013.

1014.

SYRIA TIO!

Bowsher, J. “The Nabataean army’, in E 1008 B, 19-30

Brown, J. P. The Lebanon and Phoenicia; 1 The Physical Setting and the
Forest. Beirut, 1966

Cantineau, J. “Textes Palmyréniens provenant de la fouille du Temple
de Bel’, Syria 12 (1931) 116-41

Colledge, M. A. R. ‘Le temple de Bél 4 Palmyre: qui I’a fait, et
pourquoi?’ in Palmyre. Bilan et Perspectives, 4s~52. Strasburg, 1976

. Colledge, M. A. R. ‘Interpretatio Romana: the semitic populations of

Syria and Mesopotamia’, in Henig, M. and King, A. (eds.) Pagan Gods
and Shrines of the Roman Empire, 221-31. Oxford, 1986

Cumont, F. ‘The population of Syria’, JRS 24 (1934) 187-90

Dayton, J. E. ‘A Roman/Byzantine site in the Hedjaz’, Proc. Seminar
Arabian Studies 1-3 (1972) 21-5

Dentzer, J.-M. ‘Sondages prés de l’arc nabatéen 4 Bostra’, Berytus 32
(1984) 163-74

Dentzer, J.-M. Hauran, 1, 1: 1, 2, Paris, 1985; 1986

Dentzer, J.-M. ‘Développement et culture de la Syrie du Sud dans la
période préprovinciale (1° siécle avant J.-C.—1* siécle aprés J.-C.)’, inE
999, I, 2, 387-420

Dentzer, J.-M. ‘Les sondages de I’arc nabatéen et l’urbanisme de
Bostra’, CR_AI (1986) 62-87

Dentzer, J.-M. and J. ‘Les fouilles de Si et la phase hellénistique en Syrie
du Sud’, CR. AI (1981) 78-102

DeVries, B. ‘Umm el-Jimal in the first three centuries a.p.’, in E 1008 A,
227-41

Dihle, A. ‘Das Datum des Periplus des Roten Meeres’, in Umstrittene
Daten, 9-35. Cologne, 1965

Downey, G. ‘The size of the population of Antioch’, TAPA 89 (1958)
84-91

Downey, G. A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab
Conquest. Princeton, 1961

Dussaud, R. La pénétration des Arabes en Syrie avant (Islam. Paris, 1955
Evenari, M., Shanan, L. and Tadmor, N. The Negev. 2nd edn.
Cambridge, MA, 1982

Freeman, P. and Kennedy, D. (eds.) The Defence of the Roman and
Byzantine East (BAR Int. Series 297). 2 vols. Oxford, 1986

French, D. H. and Lightfoot, C. S. (eds.) The Eastern Frontier of the
Roman Empire (BAR Int. Series 553). Oxford, 1989

Gatier, P.-L. ‘Philadelphie et Gerasa, du royaume nabatéen 4 la
province d’Arabie’, Géographie historique au Proche-Orient. Forthcoming
Gracey, M. H. ‘The Roman army in Syria, Judaea and Arabia’. 2 vols.
Diss., Oxford, 1981

Graf, D. ‘The Nabataeans and the Decapolis’, in D 1008 A, 785-96
Heichelheim, F.M., ‘Roman Syria’, in D 128 1v, 121-258

Hiitteroth, W.-D. and Abdulfattah, K. Historical Geography of Palestine.
Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late 16th Century. Erlangen, 1977
Ingraham, M. L., Johnson, T. D., Rihani, B. and Shatla, I. ‘Preliminary

1102

1015.
1016.
1017.

1018,
1019.

1020.
1021.

1022.
1023,
1024-6
1027.
1028.
1029.

1030,

1031.
1032.

1033.
1034.

1035.
1036.
1037.
1038.
1039.

1040.

1041.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

report on a reconnaissance survey of the Northwestern Province (witha
note on a brief survey of the Northern Province)’, Aft/al 5 (1981) 59-84
Isaac, B. “Trade routes to Arabia and the Roman army’, Roman Frontier
Studies, 1979 (1980) 889-901

Isaac, B. ‘The Decapolis in Syria. A neglected inscription’, ZPE 44
(1981) 67-74

Janssen, A. and Savignac, R. Mission archéologique en Arabie. 2 vols. Paris,
1909-14

Jones, A. H. M. ‘The urbanisation of Palestine’, JRS 21 (1931) 78-85
Jones, A. H. M. ‘The urbanisation of the Ituraean principality’, JRS 21
(1931) 265-75

Jones, C. P. “Three foreigners in Attica’, Phoenix 32 (1978) 222-34
Kennedy, D. L. ‘Parthians in the Roman army’, in Fitz, J. (ed.) Limes,
Abkten des XI. Internationalen Limeskongresses, 521-31. Budapest, 1977
Kennedy, D. L. ‘The auxilia and numeri raised in the Roman Province
of Syria’, Diss., Oxford, 1980

Kennedy, D. L. ‘C. Velius Rufus’, Britannia 14 (1983) 183-96

Vacant

Kennedy, D. L. and Riley, D. Rome’s Desert Frontier from the Air.
London, 1990

Kirwan, L. ‘A Roman shipmaster’s handbook’, GJ 147 (1981) 80-5
Kirwan, L. ‘Where to search for the ancient port of Leuke Kome’,
Studies in the History of Arabia: 11. Pre-Islamic Arabia, 55-61. Riyadh,
1984

Kraeling, C. H. ‘The Jewish community at Antioch’, JBL 51 (1932)
130-60

Kraeling, C. H. Gerasa. City of the Decapolis. New Haven, CT, 1938
Lassus, J. Les portiques d’ Antioche. Antioch on the Orontes, 5. Princeton,
1972

Lauffray, J. ‘Beyrouth Il’, 4NRW II, 8 (1978) 135-63

Lewis, N. N. Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan, 1800-1980.
Cambridge, 1987

Liebeschuetz, J. W. H. G. ‘Epigraphic evidence on the Christianization
of Syria’, Limes. Akten des XI internationalen Limeskongresses, 485-508.
Budapest, 1977

Lindner, M. Petra und das Kénigreich der Nabataer. 2 vols. Munich, 1974
Matthews, J. F. ‘The tax law of Palmyra. Evidence for economic history
in a city of the Roman East’, JRS 74 (1984) 157-80

McKenzie, J. The Architecture of Petra. British Institute at Amman for
Archaeology and History. Oxford, 1990

Millar, F. G. B. ‘Empire, community and culture in the Roman Near
East: Greeks, Syrians, Jews and Arabs’, JJS 38 (1987) 143-64

Millar, F. G. B. ‘The Roman coloniae of the Near East: a study of cultural
relations’, in Solin, H. and Kajava, M. (eds.) Roman Eastern Policy and
Other Studies in Roman History, 7-58. Helsinki, 1990

Miller, D. S. ‘Bostra in Arabia: Nabataean and Roman city of the Near
East’, in Marchese, R. T. (ed.) Aspects of Graeco-Roman Urbanism (BAR
International Series 188), 110-37. Oxford, 1983

1042.

1043.
1044.

1045.
1046.

1047.
1048.

1649.
logo.

10$1.

1052.
1053.

10$ 4.
105$5.

1056.

1057.
1058.

105§9.
1060.

1061.
1062,

1063.
1064.
1065.
1065A.
1066.
1067.

1068.

SYRIA 1103

Miller, J. I. The Spice Trade of the Roman Empire, 29 B.C. to A.D. 641.
Oxford, 1969

Mouterde, R. ‘Tyr, les agoranomes de 1’an 60’, MUS] 26 (1944-6) 60-3
Mubhly, J. D. ‘Copper and tin’, Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts and Sciences 43
(1973) 155-535

Negev, A. The Nabataean Potter's Workshop at Oboda. Bonn, 1974
Negev, A. ‘The Nabataeans and the Provincia Arabia’, ANRW II, 8
(1978) 520-686

Negev, A. Nabataean Archaeology Today. New York, 1986

Parr, P. J., Harding, G. L. and Dayton, J. E. ‘Preliminary survey in NW
Arabia, 1968’, BLAL 8/9 (1968/9) 193-242; 10 (1971) 23-60

Peters, F. E. ‘The Nabataeans in the Hauran’, J AOS 97 (1977) 263-77
Peters, F. E. ‘City planning in Greco-Roman Syria; some new
considerations’, MD.AI(D) 1 (1983) 269-77

Ploug, G. Hows: Fouilles et recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg 1931-1938:
m1, 1. The Graeco-Roman Town. Copenhagen, 1985

Ragette, F. Baa/bek. London, 1980

Raikes, R. ‘The climate and hydrological background to the post-
glacial introduction of farming in the Middle East and its subsequent
spread, with examples from Jordan’, in Hadidi, A. (ed.) Studies in the
History and Archaeology of Jordan 11, 267-72. Amman, 1985
Rey-Coquais, J.-P. ‘Syrie romaine, de Pompée 4 Dioclétien’, JRS 68
(1978) 44-73

Richmond, I. A. ‘Palmyra under the aegis of Rome’, JRS 53 (1963)
43-54

Sartre, M. Trois études sur P Arabie romaine et byzantine (Coll. Latomus
178). Brussels, 1982

Sartre, M. Bostra. Des Origines a PIslam. Paris, 1985

Schlumberger, D. ‘Bornes frontiéres de la Palmyréne’, Syria 20 (1939)
43-73

Schmidt-Colinet, A. ‘Nabatdische Felsarchitektur: Bemerkungen zum
gegenwartigen Forschungsstand’, BJ 180 (1980) 189-230

Seyrig, H. ‘Questions héliopolitaines’, Syria 31 (1954) 80-98
(= Antiquités syriennes 5 (1958) 99-177)

Sourdel, D. Les Cultes du Hauran. Paris, 1952

Starcky, J. ‘Pétra et la Nabaténe’, Supp/. aw Dict. du Bible v11, 886-1017.
Paris, 1966

Strong, E. ‘Sulle tracce della Lupa Romana’, in Paribeni, R. (ed.) Scritti
in onore di B. Nogara, 475-301. Rome, 1937

Sullivan, R. D. ‘Papyri reflecting the eastern dynastic network’,
ANRW II, 8 (1978) 908-39

Sullivan, R. D. ‘The dynasty of Emesa’, ANRW II, 8 (1977) 198-219
Teixidor, J. The Pantheon of Palmyra. Leiden, 1979

Teixidor, J. Un port romain du désert. Palmyre. (Semitica 34). Paris, 1984
Tirpan, A. ‘Roman masonry techniques at the capital of the
Commagenian kingdom’, in £ 10088, 519-36

Vita-Finzi, C. The Mediterranean Valleys. Geological Changes in Historical
Times. Cambridge, 1969

1104

1069
1070

1071.

1072.
1073.

1074.
1075.
1076.
1077.
1078.
1079.

1080.
1081.

1082.

1083.
1084.

1085.
1086,
1087.
1088.
1089.
1090.

1091.

1092.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

. Wenning, R. Die Nabataer — Denkmaler und Geschichte. Gottingen, 1987
. Winnett, F. V. and Reed, W. L. Ancient Records from North Arabia.
Toronto, 1970

Wright, G. R. H. ‘The Khazneh at Petra: a_ review’,
AnnDept Antig Jordan, 6-7 (1962) 24-534

14. JUDAEA

Alon, G. Jews, Judaism and the Classical World. Jerusalem, 1977
Applebaum, S. ‘The Zealots: the case for revaluation’, JRS 61 (1971)
156-7o

Applebaum, S. ‘Judaea as a Roman province; the countryside as a
political and economic factor’, ANRW II, 8 (1977) 355-86
Applebaum, S. Judaea in Hellenistic and Roman Times. Leiden, 1989
Archer, L. J. ‘The role of Jewish women in the religion, ritual and cult
of Graeco-Roman Palestine’, in Cameron, A. and Kuhrt, A. (eds.)
Images of Women in Antiquity, 273-87. London, 1983

Archer, L. J. Her Price is Beyond Rubies. The Jewish Woman in Graeco-
Roman Palestine. Sheffield, 1990

Avi-Yonah, M. and Stern, E. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem—London, 1975-8
Avi-Yonah, M., Baras, Z. and Peli, A. (eds.) The World History of the
Jewish People: vit. The Herodian Period. Jerusalem, 1975

Avigad, N. Discovering Jerusalem. Oxford, 1984

Avigad, N. ef a/. ‘The expedition to the Judaean desert, 1961’, JEJ 12
(1962) 167-262

Baer, Y. ‘Jerusalem in the times of the Great Revolt’, Zion 36 (1971)
127-90; 37 (1972) 120. In Hebrew

Bammel, E. ‘Die Rechtsstellung des Herodes’, ZDPalV 84 (1968) 73-9
Bammel, E. and Moule, C. F. D. (eds.) Jesus and the Politics of his Day.
Cambridge, 1984

Bar-Adon, P. ‘Another settlement of the Judaean desert sect at ‘En el-
Ghuweir on the shores of the Dead Sea’, BASOR 277 (1977) 1-25
Bar-Kochva, B. ‘Seron and Cestius at Beith Horon’, PEQ 108 (1976)
13-21

Barnes, T. D. “Trajan and the Jews’, JJS 40 (1989) 145-62

Barnett, P. W. ‘Under Tiberius all was quiet’, NTS 21 (1975) 564-71
Barnett, P. W. ‘The Jewish sign prophets a.p. 40-70 — their intentions
and origin’, NTS 27 (1981) 679-97

Baron, S. W. A Social and Religious History of the Jews:1. Ancient Times: to
the Beginning of the Christian Era. New York—London, 1952

Baumann, U. Rom und die Juden: die rimisch-jidischen Beziehungen von
Pompeius bis zum Tode Herodes, 63 v. Chr.—g v. Chr. Frankfurt, 1983
Ben-Shalom, I. ‘The Shammai school and its place in the political and
social history of Eretz Israel in the first century a.p.’. Ph.D. thesis, Tel
Aviv, 1980. In Hebrew

1093.
1094.
1095.
1096.
1097.

1098.

1099.

1101.
1102.
1103.
1104.
1105.

1106,
1107.

1108,

1109.

IT1O.
IIIT.
1112,

1113.
1114.

1115.

JUDAEA 1105

Benoit, P., Milik, J. T. and De Vaux, R. Les Grottes de Murabba’at.
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, . Oxford, 1960

Bilde, P. ‘The causes of the Jewish War according to Josephus’, JJ 10
(1979) 179-202

Blenkinsopp, J. ‘Prophecy and priesthood in Josephus’, J JS 25 (1974)
239-62

Brandon, S. G. F. The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church. 2nd edn.
London, 1957

Brandon, S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots: a Study of the Political Factors in
Primitive Christianity. Manchester, 1967

Brooten, B. J. Women Leaders of the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional
Evidence and Background Issues. Chico, 1982

Brunt, P. A. ‘Josephus on social conflicts in Roman Judaea’, Kiio 59

(1977) 149-53

. Busink, T. A. Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes. 2 vols.

Leiden, 1980

Cohen, S. J. D. ‘The origins of the matrilineal principle in rabbinic law’,
AYJS Review 10 (1985) 19-33

Cohen, S.J. D. ‘Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16:13)? Patristic exegesis,
rabbinic law and matrilineal descent’, JBL 105 (1986) 25 1-68

Cohen, S. J. D. ‘Crossing the boundary and becoming a Jew’, HTR 82
(1989) 13-33

Collins, J. J. Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic
Diaspora. New York, 1983

Corbishley, T. ‘Quirinius and the census: a re-study of the evidence’,
Klio 29 (1936) 81-93

Crook, J. A. ‘Titus and Berenice’, AJPh 72 (1951) 162-75

Davies, P. S. “The meaning of Philo’s text about the gilded shields’, JTS
N.S. 37 (1986) 109-14

De Lange, N. R. M. ‘Jewish attitudes to the Roman Empire’, in
Garnsey, P. D. A. and Whittaker, C. R. (eds.) Imperialism in the Ancient
World, 225-81. Cambridge, 1978

Dimant, D., Mor, M. and Rappaport, U. (eds.) Bibliography of Works on
Jewish History in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Publications of
the Years 1981-198. Jerusalem, 1987

Dupont-Sommer, A. ‘Exorcismes et guérisons dans les récits de
Qoumran’, Vetus Testamentum Supplement 7 (1960) 246-61

Epstein, L. M. Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud. Cambridge,
MA, 1942

Farmer, W. R. Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus, an Inquiry into Jewish
Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period. New York, 1956

Farmer, W. R. ‘Judas, Simon and Athronges’, NTS 4 (1958) 147-55
Fasola, U. M. ‘Le due catacombe ebraiche di Villa Torlonia’, RAC 52
(1976) 19-20

Freyne, S. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E. to 135
c.£. Notre Dame, 1980

1106

1116

L117.

1118.

1119.

1120.
112!.

1122.
1123.

1124.

1125.
1126.
1127.
1128.

1129.
1130.

1131.

1132.

1133.

1134.

1135.

1136.

1137-

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

. Fuks, G. ‘Again on the episode of the gilded Roman shields at
Jerusalem’, HTR 75 (1982) 503-7

Gabba, E. “The finances of King Herod’, in Kasher, A., Rappaport, U.
and Fuks, G. (eds.) Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays, 1G0-
8. Jerusalem, 1990

Gager, J. G. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes towards Judaism in
Pagan and Christian Antiquity. New York, 1985

Ghiretti, M. ‘Lo “status” della Giudea dall’eta Augustea all’eta
Claudia’, Latomus 44 (1985) 751-66

Gichon, M. ‘Idumea and the Herodian limes’, IE] 17 (1967) 27-45
Gichon, M. ‘Cestius Gallus’ campaign in Judaea’, PEQ 113 (1981)

39-62

Golb, N. ‘The problem of origin and identification of the Dead Sea
Scrolls’, PAAJR 124 (1980) 1-24

Goodblatt, D. ‘The place of the Pharisees in first century Judaism: the
state of the debate’, JSJ 20 (1989) 12-30

Goodenough, E. R..The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt: Legal
Administration by the Jews under the Early Roman Empire, as Described by
Philo Judaeus. New Haven, 1929

Goodenough, E. R. By Light, Light: the Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic
Judaism. New Haven, 1935

Goodenough, E. R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 13 vols.
New York, 1953-68

Goodman, M. D. ‘The first Jewish revolt: social conflict and the
problem of debt’, JJS 33 (1982) 417-27

Goodman, M. D. State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-212.
Totowa, 1983

Goodman, M. D. ‘A bad joke in Josephus’, JJ/S 36 (1985) 195-9
Goodman, M. D. The Ruling Class of Judaea. The Origins of the Jewish
Revolt against Rome, a.p. 66-70. Cambridge, 1987 :
Gracey, M. H. ‘The armies of the Judaean client-kings’, in E 1008 A,
311-23

Hachlili, R. and Killebrew, A. ‘Jewish funerary customs during the
Second Temple period, in the light of the excavations at the Jericho
necropolis’, PEQ 115 (1983) 109-39

Hamel, G. Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, First Three Centuries
c.E. Berkeley, 1990

Hengel, M. ‘Proseuche und Synagoge: Jiidische Gemeinde, Gotteshaus
und Gottesdienst in der Diaspora und in Palastina’, in Jeremias, G.,
Kuhn, H. W. and Stegemann, H. (eds.) Tradition und Glaube. Das friihe
Christentum in seiner Umwelt, 157-84. Gottingen, 1971

Hengel, M. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine
during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. London, 1974

Hengel, M. Die Zeloten: Untersuchungen zur jiidischen Freibeitsbewegung in
der Zeit von Herodes I. bis 70 n. Chr. 2nd edn. Leiden, 1976; transl. as £ 1138
Hengel, M. The ‘Hellenization’ of Judaea in the First Century after Christ.
London, 1989

1138.

1139.
1140.

1141.
1142.

1143.

1144.

1145.
1146.
1147.
1148.
1149.
1150.
IIgt.
1152.
1153.
1154.
115.
1156.
1157.
1158.
1159.
1160.
1161.
1162.

1163.

1164.

JUDAEA 1107

Hengel, M. The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in
the Period from Herod I until 7o a.p. Edinburgh, 1989

Hoehner, W. W. Herod Antipas. Cambridge, 1972

Holum, K. G. ef al. King Herod’s Dream. Caesarea on the Sea. New York,
1989

Horsley, R. A. ‘Josephus and the bandits’, JSJ 10 (1979) 37-63
Horsley, R. A. ‘The sicarii: ancient Jewish “‘terrorists”’, JR 52 (1979)
435-58

Horsley, R. A. ‘Ancient Jewish banditry and the revolt against Rome,
A.D. 66-70’, CBO 43 (1981) 409-32

Horsley, R. A. ‘Menahem in Jerusalem: a brief messianic episode
among the Sicarii — not “Zealot Messianism”’, Novum Testamentum 27
(1985) 334-48

Horsley, R. A. ‘High Priests and the politics of Roman Palestine. A
contextual analysis of the evidence in Josephus’, JSJ 17 (1986) 23-55
Horsley, R. A. ‘Popular prophetic movements at the time of Jesus’,
JSNT 26 (1986) 3-27

Horsley, R. A. ‘The Zealots: their origin, relationship and importance
in the Jewish revolt’, Novum Testamentum 28 (1986) 159-92

Horsley, R. A. and Hanson, J. S. Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs. Popular
Movements in the Time of Jesus. Minneapolis, 1985

Isaac, B. ‘Bandits in Judaea and Arabia’, HSCP 88 (1984) 171-203
Isaac, B. ‘Judaea after a.p. 70’, JJS 35 (1984) 44-50

Jeremias, J. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. London, 1969

Jones, A. H. M. The Herods of Judaea. Oxford, 1938

Kasher, A. (ed.) The Great Jewish Revolt: Factors and Circumstances
Leading to its Outbreak. Jerusalem, 1983. In Hebrew

Kasher, A. The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. The Struggle for Equal
Rights (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 7). Tiibingen, 1985
Kasher, A. Jews, Idumaeans and Ancient Arabs: Relations of the Jews in
Eretg-Israel with the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert. Tabingen, 1988
Kasher, A. Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel:Relations of the Jews in
Eretz-Israel with the Hellenistic Cities during the Second Temple Period (332
B.C.E.-70 C.E.). Tubingen, 1990

Kingdon, H. P. ‘The origins of the Zealots’, NTS 19 (1972-3) 74-81
Klausner, J. The Messianic Idea in Israel. London, 1956

Kloner, A. ‘Underground hiding complexes from the Bar Kochba war
in the Judaean Shephelah’, BiAr 46.4 (December 1983) 210-21
Kloner, A. and Tepper, Y. The Hiding Complexes in the Judaean Shephelah.
Tel Aviv, 1987. In Hebrew

Kochavi, M. (ed.) Judaea, Samaria and the Golan: Archaeological Survey
1967-1968. Jerusalem, 1972. In Hebrew

Kokkinos, N. ‘A fresh look at the gentilicium of Felix, procurator of
Judaea’, Latomus 49 (1990) 126-41

Kraabel, A. T. ‘The Roman diaspora: six questionable assumptions’,
JIS 33 (1982) 445-64

Kraft, R. A. ‘The multiform Jewish heritage of early Christianity’, in

1108

1165.
1166.
1167.
1168.
1169.

1170.

1171.
1172.

1173.
1174.

1175.
1176.

1177.
1178.
1179.
1180.
1181.
1182.
1183.
1184.
1185.
1186.
1187.

1188.

1189.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Neusner, J. (ed.) Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, tl,
174-99. Leiden, 1975

Kreissig, H. ‘Die landwirtschaftliche Situation in Palastina vor dem
Judaischen Krieg’, Acta Antiqua 17 (1969) 223-54

Kreissig, H. Die sozialen Zusammenhdnge des juddischen Krieges: Klassen und
Klassenkampf im Palastina des 1. Jabrhunderts v.u.Z. Berlin, 1970

Levine, L. I. Caesarea under Roman Rule (Studies in Judaism in Late
Antiquity 3). Leiden, 1975

Levine, L. I. (ed.) Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem, 1981

Levine, L. I. (ed.) The Synagogue in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia, 1987
Lieberman, S. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (Texts and studies of the Jew.
Theol. Sem. of America 18). New York, 1950

Lieberman, S. Greek in Jewish Palestine. 2nd edn. New York, 1965
Linder, A. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Detroit—Jerusalem,
1987

McEleney, N. J. ‘Orthodoxy in Judaism of the first Christian century’,
JSJ 9 (1978) 83-8

McKnight, S.A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the
Second Temple Period. Minneapolis, 1991

Mantel, H. P. Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin. Cambridge, MA, 1961
Michel, O. ‘Studien zu Josephus: Simon bar Giora’, NTS 14 (1968)
402-8

Millar, F. G. B. ‘The background to the Maccabean revolution’, JJS 29
(1978) 1-21

Momigliano, A. D. Ricerche sulf organizzazione della Giudea sotto il dominio
romano, 63 aC-70 dC. Bologna, 1934

Moore, G. F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. 3 vols.
Cambridge, MA, 1927-30

Netzer, E. ‘Miqvaot (ritual baths) of the Second Temple period at
Jericho’, Qadmoniot 11 (1978) 54-9. In Hebrew

Netzer, E. Greater Herodium (Qedem 13). Jerusalem, 1981

Neusner, J. .4 History of the Jews in Babylonia 1. 2nd edn. Leiden, 1969
Neusner, J. 4 Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai A.D. 1-80. 2nd edn. (Studia
Postbiblica 6). Leiden, 1970

Neusner, J. The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70. 3 parts.
Leiden, 1971

Neusner, J., Green, W. S. and Frerichs, E. S. (eds.) Judaisms and their
Messiabs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge, 1987
Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in
Intertestamental Judaism. Cambridge, MA, 1972

Oppenheimer, A. The ‘Am Ha-aretz: a Study in the Social History of the
Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Leiden, 1977
Oppenheimer, A., Rappaport, U. and Stern, M. (eds.) Jerusalem in the
Second Temple Period. Abraham Schalit memorial volume. Jerusalem,
1980

Piattelli, D. ‘Ricerche intorno alle relazioni politiche tra Rome e |” E@vos
tov "lovdaiwv dal 161 a.C. al 4.a.C.’, BIDR 74 (1971) 219-340

1190.
1191,

1192.

1193.
1194.

1195.
1196.
1197.
1198.
1199.
1200.
1201,
1202.
1203.

1204.

1205.

1206.
1207.

1208.
1209.
1210.
1211.

1212,

JUDAEA 1109

Pucci, M. La Rivolta Ebraica al tempo di Traiano. Pisa, 1981

Rahmani, L. Y. ‘Ancient Jerusalem’s funerary customs and the tombs:
part three’, BiAr 45.1 (Winter 1982) 43-53

Rahmani, L. Y. ‘Some remarks on R. Hachlili’s and A. Killebrew’s
**Jewish funerary customs”’, PEQ 118 (1986) 96—100

Rajak, T. ‘Justus of Tiberias’, CO n.s. 23 (1973) 345-68

Rajak, T. ‘Was there a Roman charter for the Jews?’ JRS 74 (1984)
107-23

Rappaport, U. ‘Jewish—pagan relations and the revolt against Rome in
66-70 C.E.’, The Jerusalem Cathedra 1 (1981) 81-95

Rappaport, U. ‘John of Gischala: from Galilee to Jerusalem’, JJS 33
(1982) 479-93

Rappaport, U. and Mor, M. Bibliography of Works on Jewish History in the
Hellenistic and Roman Period, 1976-1980. Jerusalem, 1982

Reynolds, J. and Tannenbaum, R. Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias
(PCPAS, Supp. vol. 12). Cambridge, 1987

Rhoads, D. M. Israel in Revolution: 6-74 C.£.: a Political History Based on the
Writings of Josephus. Philadelphia, 1976

Rivkin, E. A Hidden Revolution. The Pharisees’ Search for the Kingdom
Within. Nashville, 1978

Roth, C. ‘The historical implications of the Jewish coinage of the First
Revolt’, [EJ 12 (1962) 33-46

Roth, C. ‘The constitution of the Jewish republic of 66-70’, JJS 9 (1964)
304-19

Rowland, C. The Open Heaven: a Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early
Christianity. London, 1982

Safrai, S. and Stern, M. (eds.) The Jewish People in the First Century
(Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Sect. 1) 2
vols. Assen, 1974-6

Sanders, E. P. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnab: Five Studies. London—
Philadelphia, 1990

Schalit, A. Kénig Herodes: der Mann und sein Werk. Berlin, 1969
Schirer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ.
Revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black and M. Goodman. 3 vols.
Edinburgh, 1973-87 (1: 1973; 11: 1979; 111. 1 (pp. 1-704): 1986; 111. 2 (pp.
705-1015): 1987)

Schwartz, D. R. ‘Ishmael ben Phiabi and the chronology of Provincia
Judaea’, Tarbiz 52 (1983) 177-200. In Hebrew

Schwartz, D. R. Agrippa I, the Last King of Judaea. Jerusalem, 1987. In
Hebrew

Shanks, H. Judaism in Stone: the Archaeology of Ancient Synagogues. New
York, 1979

Smallwood, E. M. ‘High priests and politics in Roman Palestine’, JTS
ns. 13 (1962) 14-34

Smallwood, E. M. The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian: a
Study in Political Relations. Leiden, 1976

TIIO

1213

1214.

1215

I21§A
1216

1217

1218.

1219.

1220.
1221.
1222.
1223.
1224.
1225.

1226,
1227.

1228.
1229.
1230.
1231.
1232.
1233.
1234.
1235.
1236.

1237.

E. ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

Smith, M. ‘Zealots and sicarii: their origins and relations’, HTR 64
(1971) 1-19

Sparks, H. F. D. (ed.) The Apocryphal Old Testament. Oxford, 1984
Speidel, M. P. “The Roman army in Judaea under the procurators’,
AncSoc 13/14 (1982/3) 233-40

Stemberger, G. Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch. 8th edn. Munich, 1992
Stern, M. ‘Herod’s policy and Jewish society at the end of the Second
Temple period’, Tarbiz 35 (1966) 235-53. In Hebrew

Stern, M. ‘The status of Provincia Judaea and its governors in the
Roman Empire under the Julio-Claudian dynasty’, Eretz Israe/ 10
(1971) 274-82. In Hebrew

Stern, M. ‘Aspects of Jewish society: the priesthood and other classes’,
in E 1204, II, 561-630

Stern, M. ‘Sicarii and Zealots’, in Avi-Yonah, M. and Baras, Z. (eds.)
Society and Religion in the Second Temple Period. The World History of the
Jewish People 1.8, 263-301. London, 1977

Stern, M. ‘The expulsion of Jews from Rome in antiquity’, Zion 44
(1980) 1-27. In Hebrew

Stern, M. ‘Social and political realignments in Herodian Judaea’, The
Jerusalem Cathedra 2 (1982) 40-62

Stern, M. ‘The suicide of Eleazar ben Jair and his men at Masada, and
the “Fourth Philosophy”’, Zion 47 (1982) 367-98. In Hebrew

Stone, M. E. Scriptures, Sects and Visions: a Profile of Judaism from Ezra to
the Jewish Revolt. Oxford, 1982

Sullivan, R. D. ‘The dynasty of Judaea in the first century’, ANRW II,
8 (1978) 262-94

Tcherikover, V. A. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia—
Jerusalem, 1961

Tcherikover, V. A. ‘Was Jerusalem a Polis?’, IE] 14 (1964) 61-78
Theissen, G. The First Followers of Jesus: a Sociological Analysis of the
Earliest Christians. London, 1978

Urbach, E. E. The Sages: their Concepts and Beliefs. 2 vols. Jerusalem, 1975
Vaux, R. de Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. London, 1973
Vermes, G. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. London, 1977
Vermes, G. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. 3rd edn. Harmondsworth,
1987

Vidal-Naquet, P. ‘Du bon usage de Ia trahison’, in Josephus, De Bello
Judaico, trans. by P. Savinel. Paris, 1977

Wilkinson, J. ‘Ancient Jerusalem: its water supply and population’,
PEQ 106 (1974) 33-51

Winter, P. On the Trialof Jesus. Revised by T. A. Burkill and G. Vermes.
znd edn. Berlin-New York, 1974

Yadin, Y. Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand. London,
1966

Yadin, Y. (ed.) Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City 1968-1974.
Jerusalem, 1975

Zeitlin, S. The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State. A Political, Social and

20.

21.
22.

23.

SOCIETY 1111

Religious History of the Second Commonwealth. 3 vols. Philadelphia,
1962-78

F. SOCIETY, RELIGION AND CULTURE

I. SOCIETY AND ITS INSTITUTIONS

. Alféldy, G. The Social History of Rome. London, revd edn. 1988
. Astolfi, R. La lex Iulia et Papia. 2nd edn. Padua, 1986
. Atkinson, K. M. ‘The purpose of the manumission laws of Augustus’, IJ

n.s. 1 (1966) 356-74

. Badian, E. ‘A phantom marriage-law’, Philologus 129 (1985) 82-98
. Barrow, R. H. Slavery in the Roman Empire. London, 1928
. Bauman, R. A. ‘Some remarks on the structure and survival of the

quaestio de adulteriis’, Antichthon 2 (1968) 68-93

. Besnier, R. ‘Properce (Elégies I, vii et viiA) et le premier échec de la

législation démographique d’Auguste’, RHD 57 (1979) 191-203

. Bollinger, T. Theatralis licentia: die Publikumsdemonstrationen an den

Offentlichen Spielen im Rom. Winterthur, 1969

. Bouvrie, S. des ‘Augustus’ legislation on morals. Which morals and what

aims?’ SymbOsl 59 (1984) 93-113

. Bradley, K. R. Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire. A Study in Social

Control (Coll. Latomus 185). Brussels, 1984; repr. New York, 1987

. Brunt, P. A. ‘“‘Amicitia” in the late Roman Republic’, PCPAS n.s. 11

(1965) 1-20 (=Seager, R. (ed.) The Crisis of the Roman Republic.
Cambridge, 1969 =revd in A 11, 351-81)

. Brunt, P. A. Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic. London, 1971

. Brunt, P. A. “Two great Roman landowners’, Latomus 34 (1975) 619-35
. Brunt, P. A. ‘Nobilitas and novitas’, JRS 72 (1982) 1-17

. Brunt, P. A. ‘Clientela’, in a 11, 382-442

. Cameron, A. Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium.

Oxford, 1976

. Clavel-Léevéque, M. L’ Empire en Jeux. Paris, 1984
. Cohen, B. ‘La notion d’“ordo” dans la Rome antique’, BAGB 19735,

259-82

. Corte, F. della. ‘Le leges Iuliae e l’elegia romana’, ANRW II, 30. 1 (1982)

539-58
Crawford, M. H. ‘Greek intellectuals and the Roman aristocracy in the

first century B.c.’, in Garnsey, P. D. A. and Whittaker, C. R. (eds.)
Imperialism in the Ancient World, 193-207. Cambridge, 1978

Crook, J. A. Law and Life of Rome. London, 1967

D’Arms, J. H. Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome. Cambridge,
MA, 1981

D’Arms, J. H. ‘Control, companionship and clientela: some social
functions of the Roman communal meal’, CV 28 (1984) 327-48

I1I2
24.

25.
26.

26A.
27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33-
34.

33.

37:
38.
39-
40.
41.

42.

43.

45.

46.

F. SOCIETY, RELIGION, CULTURE

D’Arms, J. H. ‘The Roman convivium and equality’, in Murray, O. (ed.)
Sympotica: a Symposion on the Symposion. Oxford, 1990

De Ruyt, C. Macellum, marché alimentaire des romains. Louvain, 1985
Dixon, S. ‘Infirmitas sexus: womanly weakness in Roman law’, TvR 52
(1984) 343-71

Dixon, S. The Roman Mother. London, 1988

Domenicis, M. de. ‘La Latinitas Iuniana e \a legge Elia Senzia’, Mélanges
d Archéologie et d Histoire offerts a André Piganiol 111, 1419-31. Paris, 1966
Duff, A. M. Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire. Cambridge, 1928; 2nd
edn. 1958

Duncan-Jones, R.-P. ‘Demographic change and economic progress
under the Roman Empire’, in Tecnologia, economia e societa nel mondo romano
(= Proceedings of the Como conference of 1979), 67-80. Como, 1980
Flambard, M. ‘Collegia compitalicia: phénoméne associatif, cadres
territoriaux et cadres civiques dans le monde romain a l’époque
républicaine’, Ktema 6 (1981) 143-66

Frézouls, E. ‘Le theatrum lapideum et son contexte politique’, in Théatre
et spectacles dans f_Antiquité, Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (1981), 193-214.
Leiden, 1983

Galinsky, G. K. ‘Augustus’ legislation on morals and marriage’,
Philologus 125 (1981) 126-44

Gardner, J. F. Women in Roman Law and Society. London, 1986
Gardner, J. F. ‘Proofs of status in the Roman world’, BICS 33 (1986)
I-14

Garnsey, P. Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford,
1970

. Garnsey, P. ‘Urban property investment’, in A 27, 123-36

Garnsey, P. (ed.) Non-Slave Labour in the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge,
1980

Garnsey, P. ‘Descendants of freedmen in local politics: some criteria’, in
Levick, B. M. (ed.) The Ancient Historian and his Materials. Essays in Honour
of C. E. Stevens on his Seventieth Birthday, 167-80. Farnborough, 1975
Hands, A. R. Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome. London, 1968
Harris, W. V. ‘On the applicability of the concept of class in Roman
history’, in A 111, 598-610

Hopkins, M. K. ‘The age of Roman girls at marriage’, Population Studies
18 (1965) 309-27

Ladage, D. ‘Soziale Aspekte des Kaiserkultes’, in Eck, W. et al. (eds.)
Studien zur antiken Sozialgeschichte (= Festschrift F. Vittinghoff), 377~88.
KGln, 1980

MacMullen, R. ‘Market days in the Roman Empire’, Phoenix 24 (1970)
333-41

MacMullen, R. Roman Social Relations so B.C. to A.D. 284. New Haven,
1974

Montagna Pasquinucci, M. (ed.) Terme romane e vita quotidiana. Modena,
1987

Mrozek, S. ‘Crustulum et mulsum dans les villes italiennes’, Athenaeum

5° (1972) 294-300

47-

48.

49.

50.

a
-

53-

$4.
$5.

57-

58.

59.
Go.

62.

63.

64.

SOCIETY 1113

Neécropoles a incinération du Haut-Empire, Actes de la table ronde de Lyon 1986.
Lyons, 1987

Nicolet, C. ‘Plébe et tribus. Les statues de Lucius Antonius et le
testament d’ Auguste’, MEFRA 97 (1985) 799-839

Purcell, N. ‘The apparitores: a study in social mobility’, PBSR 51 (1983)
125-73

Purcell, N. ‘Livia and the womanhood of Rome’, PCPAS 212 (1986)
78-105

- Purcell, N. “Town in country and country in town’, in MacDougall, E. B.

(ed.) The Ancient Roman Villa Garden, 188-203. Washington, DC, 1987

. Purcell, N. ‘Tomb and suburb’, in Hesberg, H. von and Zanker, P. (eds.)

Rémische Graberstrassen, 25-41. Munich, 1987

Raditsa, L. F. ‘Augustus’ legislation concerning marriage, procreation,
love-affairs and adultery’, ANRW II, 13 (1980) 278-339

Rawson, B. The Family in Ancient Rome. New Perspectives. London, 1986
Rawson, E. D. ‘Theatrical life in Rome and Italy’, PBSR 53 (1985)
97-113

. Rawson, E. D. ‘Discrimina ordinum: the Lex Iulia Theatralis’, PBSR 55

(1987) 83-114

Robert, L. Les gladiateurs dans orient grec. Limoges, 1940; repr.
Amsterdam, 1971

Royden, H. The Magistrates of the Roman Professional Collegia in Italy from
the First to the Third Centuries a.p. Pisa, 1988

Saller, R. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Cambridge, 1982
Saller, R. ‘Men’s age at marriage and its consequences in the Roman
family’, CPA 82 (1987) 21-34

. Scheid, J. Les fréres Arvales. Recrutemrent et origine sociale sous les empereurs

Julio-claudiens. Paris, 1975

Scheid, J. ‘Les prétres officiels sous les empereurs julio-claudiens’,
ANRW II, 16.1 (1978) 610-54

Schumacher, L. ‘Die vier héhen romischen Priesterkollegien unter den
Flaviern, den Antoninen und den Severern (69-235 n. Chr.), ANRW II,
16.1 (1978) 655-819

Setala, P. Private Domini in Roman Brick Stamps of the Empire. A Historical
and Prosopographical Study of Landowners in the District of Rome (Annales
Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Dissertationes humanarum litterarum
10). Helsinki, 1977

. Shaw, B. D. ‘The age of Roman girls at marriage: some

reconsiderations’, JRS 77 (1987) 30-46

. Spruit, J. E. De lex Iulia et Papia Poppaea. Beschouwingen over de

bevolkingspolitiek van Augustus (Univ. of Leiden Inaugural Lecture).
Deventer, 1969

. Toynbee, J. Death and Burial in the Roman World. London, 1971
. Treggiari, S. Roman Freedmen During the Late Republic. Oxford, 1969
. Treggiari, S. ‘Lower-class women in the Roman economy’, Florilegium 1

(1979) 65-86

. Treggiari, S. Roman Marriage. Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the

Time of Ulpian. Oxford, 1991

1114

71.

73-
74:

75-
. Wallace-Hadrill, A. ‘Patronage in Roman society’, in F 75, 63-87

77:
78.

79-
80.

82.

83.
84.

85.
86.

87.
88.

89.

go.
gl.

92.

Q2A.
93-
94:

95-

F. SOCIETY, RELIGION, CULTURE

Veyne, P. Le pain et le cirque. Sociologie historique d'un pluralisme politique.
Paris, 1976 (Translated and abridged as Bread and Circuses: Historical
Sociology and Political Pluralism. London, 1990)

. Wacke, A. ‘Manumissio matrimonii causa: le mariage d’affranchies

d’aprés les lois d’Auguste, RD 67 (1989) 413-28

Wallace-Hadrill, A. ‘Family and inheritance in the Augustan marriage
laws’, PCPAS 207, n.s. 27 (1981) 58-80

Wallace-Hadrill, A. ‘Propaganda and dissent? Augustan moral
legislation and the love-poets’, in A 54a, 180-4

Wallace-Hadrill, A., ed. Patronage in Ancient Society. London, 1989

Weaver, P. R. C. ‘Cognomina ingenua, a note’, CQ 14 (1964) 311-15
White, P. “Amicitia and the profession of poetry in early imperial Rome’,
JRS 68 (1978) 74-92

White, P. ‘Positions for poets in early imperial Rome’, in A 39A, 50-66
Whitehead, D. “The measure of a millionaire: what Crassus really said’,
LCM 11 (1986) 71-4

. Wiseman, T. P. ‘Conspicui postes templaque digna deo: the public image

of aristocratic and imperial houses in the late Republic and early Empire’,
in A 96, 393-413
Witherington, B. Women in the Earliest Churches. Cambridge, 1988

2. RELIGION

Alfoldi, A. Die zwei Lorbeerbaume des Augustus. Bonn, 1973

Altheim, F. A History of Roman Religion (transl. by H. Mattingly).
London, 1938

Barnes, T. D. ‘Legislation against the Christians’, JRS 58 (1968) 32-50
Barton, I. M. ‘Capitoline temples in Italy and the Provinces (especially
Africa)’, ANRW II, 12.1 (1982) 259-342

Bauer, W. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia, 1971
Bayet, J. Les origines de [ Hercule romain (BEF AR 132). Rome, 1926
Bayet, J. ‘Les sacerdoces romains et la pré-divinisation impériale’, Bull.
Acad. royale de Belgique, cl. des lettres 41 (1955) 453-527 (= Croyances et rites
dans la Rome antique, 275-336. Paris, 1971)

Beard, M. Review of McBain 1982 (F 177), Gnomon 55 (1983) 510-13
Beard, M. ‘Writing and ritual: a study of diversity and expansion in the
Arval Acta’, PBSR 53 (1985) 114-62

Beard, M. ‘A complex of times: no more sheep on Romulus’ birthday’,
PCPAS n.s. 33 (1987) 1-15

Beard, M. and North, J. Pagan Priests. London, 1990

Beaujeu, J. La religion romaine al apogée de l empire 1. Paris, 1955

Becher, I. ‘Tiberaberschwemmungen. Die Interpretation von Prodigien
in augusteischer Zeit’, Kiso 67 (1985) 471-9

Bianchi, A. ‘Disegno storico del culto Capitolino nell’Italia romana e
nelle provincie dell’Impero’, Atti Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
(Memorie, Sc. morali, 8th ser., II. 7). Rome, 1949

96.
97-
98.
99-
100.

. Bowker, J. Jesus and the Pharisees. Cambridge, 1973
102.

103.

104.
105.
106.

107.
108.

109.

110,

112.
113.
114.

115.

116.

117.

118.
119.
120.
121,

RELIGION 1115

Bickerman, E. J. ‘Filius Maiae (Horace, Odes, 1.2.43)’, PP 16 (1961) 5—
19 (= Religions and Politics in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, 453-69.
Como, 1985)

Bomer, F. ‘Kybele in Rom’, MDAI(R) 71 (1964) 130-51

Bomer, F. ‘Wie ist Augustus mit Vesta verwandt?’, Gyan. 94 (1987)
525-8

Bornkamm, G. Jesus of Nazareth. London, 1960

Bousset, W. Kyrios Christos. London, 1970

Boyancé, P. ‘Properce aux fétes de quartier’, REA 52 (1950) 64-70
(= Etudes sur la religion romaine (Collection de l’école frangaise de Rome
11), 291-7. Rome, 1972)

Boyancé, P. ‘Cybéle aux Mégalésies, Latomus 13 (1954) 337-42 (= Etudes
sur la religion romaine (Collection de l’école frangaise de Rome 11), 195~
200. Rome, 1972)

Brelich, A. ‘Offerte e interdizioni alimentari nel culto della Magna Mater
a Roma’, SMSR 36 (1965) 27-42

Bremmer, J. and Horsfall, N. Roman Myth and Mythography (BICS, Suppl.
52). London, 1987

Brind’amour, P. ‘L’origine des jeux séculaires’, ANRW II, 16 (1978)
13§3-71

Brunt, P. A. ‘Stoicism and the principate’, PBSR 43 (1975) 7-35
Burnett, A. Review of Rainer, A. Das Bild des Augustus auf den friiben
Reichspragungen, Gnomon 55 (1983) 563-5

Cannadine, D. and Price, S. (eds.) Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial
in Traditional Societies. Cambridge, 1987

Catalano, P. ‘Aspetti spaziali del sistema giuridico-religioso romano.
Mundus, templum, urbs, ager, Latium, Italia’, ANRW II, 16.1 (1978)
440-553

. Cerfaux, L. and Tondriau, J. Un concurrent du Christianisme. Le culte des

Souverains dans la civilisation gréco-romaine. Tournai, 1957

Chadwick, H. The Early Church. Harmondsworth, 1968

Charlesworth, J. H. Jesus Within Judaism. New York, 1988
Charlesworth, M. P. ‘The virtues of the Roman emperor. Propaganda
and the creation of belief’, PBA (1937) 105-33

Charlesworth, M. P. ‘The refusal of divine honours, an Augustan
formula’, PBSR 2 (1939) 1-10

Coarelli, F. ‘Il Pantheon, l’apoteosi di Augusto e |’apoteosi di Romolo’,
Citta e architettura nella Roma imperiale (Analecta Romana, Suppl. 10), 41-6.
Odense, 1983

Collins, J. J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: an Introduction to the Jewish
Matrix of Christianity. New York, 1987

Daniélou, J. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. London, 1964

Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. ath edn. London, 1980

Diels, H. Siby/linische Blatter. Berlin, 1890

Dilke, O. A. W. ‘Religious mystique in the training of Agrimensores’,
Hommages a Henri Le Bonniec (Coll. Latomus 201) 158—6z. Brussels, 1988

1116

122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.

128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.

142.
143.
143A.
144.
145.
146.

147.

148.

F. SOCIETY, RELIGION, CULTURE

Dumézil, G. ‘Augur’, REL 35 (1957) 126-51 (=F 123, 79-102)
Dumézil, G. Idées romaines. Paris, 1969

Dumézil, G. Archaic Roman Religion. 2 vols. Chicago, 1970

Dumézil, G. Fétes romaines d’ été et d’automne. Paris, 1975

Dunn, J. D. G. Christology in the Making. 2nd edn. London, 1990
Duthoy, R. ‘Recherches sur la répartition géographique et
chronologique des termes sevir augustalis, augustalis et sevir dans |’Empite
romain’, EpStud 11 (K6ln, 1976) 143-214

Duthoy, R. ‘Les Augustales’, ANRW II, 16. 2 (1978) 1254-309
Erkell, H. Augustus, Felicitas, Fortuna. Lateinische Wortstudien.
Gothenburg, 1952

Erkell, H. ‘Ludi saeculares und ludi Latini saeculares’, Eranos 67 (1969)
166-74

Esler, P. F. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: the Social and Political
Motivations of Lucan Theology. Cambridge, 1987

Evans, C. F. ‘The New Testament in the making’, The Cambridge History
of the Bible, 1, 232-84. Cambridge, 1970

Fauth, W. ‘Rémische Religion im Spiegel der ‘‘Fasti” des Ovid’,
ANRW II, 16.1 (1978) 104-86

Fayer, C. I/ culto della dea Roma. Pescara, 1976

Fishwick, D. ‘Genius and Numen’, HTR 62 (1969) 356-67

Fishwick, D. ‘The development of provincial ruler worship in the
western Roman empire’, ANRW II, 16.2 (1978) 1201-53

Fishwick, D. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West 1 (EPRO 108). Leiden,
1987

Fredriksen, P. From Jesus to Christ: the Origins of the New Testament Images
of Jesus. New Haven, 1988

Frend, W. H. C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church. Oxford,
1965

Frend, W. H. C. The Rise of Christianity. London, 1984

Gagé, J. ‘Romulus-Augustus’, MEFRA 47 (1930) 138-81

Gage, J. ‘Les sacerdoces d’Auguste et ses réformes religieuses’,
MEFRA 48 (1931) 75-108

Gagé, J. ‘Recherches sur les jeux séculaires II. Ce que nous apprennent
les nouveaux fragments épigraphiques’, REL 11 (1933) 172-202
(= Recherches sur les Jeux Séculaires, 45-75. Paris, 1934)

Gage, J. “Recherches sur les jeux séculaires III. Jeux séculaires et jubilés
de la fondation de Rome’, REL 11 (1933) 400-35 (= Recherches sur les
Jeux Séculaires, 77-111. Paris, 1934)

Gagé, J. ‘Actiaca’, MEFRA 53 (1936) 37-100

Gagé, J. ‘Le “Templum Urbis” et les origines de l’idée de “Renovatio’’’,
Mélanges F. Cumont 1, 151-87. Brussels, 1936

Gagé, J. Apollon romain. Essai sur le culte P Apollon et le développement du
‘ritus Graecus’ a Rome des origines @ Auguste. Paris, 1955

Gager, J. G. Kingdom and Community: the Social World of Early Christianity.
Englewood Cliffs, 1975

Gordon, R. L. ‘The veil of power: emperors, sacrificers, and
benefactors’, in F 92A, 201-31

149.
150.
1§1.
152.
153.

155.
156.

1§7-
158.

159.

161.

162.
163.

164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.

173.

RELIGION 1117

Grant, F. C. Hellenistic Religions. New York, 1953

Grant, F. C. Ancient Roman Religion. New York, 1957

Grant, M. Roman Myths. Harmondsworth, 1973

Grant, R. M. Gods and the One God. Philadelphia, 1986

Guarducci, M. ‘Enea e Vesta’, MD AI(R). 78 (1971) 73-118 (= Seritti
scelti sulla religione greca a romana e sul cristianesimo, 198-243. Leiden, 1983)

. Habicht, C. ‘Die augusteische Zeit und das erste Jahrhundert nach

Christi Geburt’, Le culte des sonverains dans Pempire romain (Entretiens
Hardt 19) 39-99. Vandoeuvres, 1973

Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. London, 1982

Hock, R. F. The Social Context of Paul's Ministry: Tentmaking and
Apostleship. Philadelphia, 1980

Holladay, A. J. and Goodman, M. D. ‘Religious scruples in ancient
warfare’, CO n.s. 36 (1986) 151-71

Jal, P. ‘Les dieux et les guerres civiles dans la Rome de la fin de la
République’, REL 40 (1962) 170-200

Judge, E. A. The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century.
London, 1960

. Kee, H. C. Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times.

Cambridge, 1986

Knoche, U. ‘Die augusteische Auspragung der Dea Roma’, Gym. 59
(19§2) 324-49 (= Vom Selbstverstandnis der Rémer, Gesammelte Aufsatze
(Gymn. Beiheft 2 (Heidelberg, 1962) no. 5), 145-73)

Koch, C. Der rémische Juppiter. Frankfurt, 1937)

Koch, C. ‘Der altrémische Staatskult im Spiegel augusteischer und
spatrepublikanischer Apologetik’, in Convivium. Festschrift Konrat Ziegler,
85-120. Stuttgart, 1954 (= Religio. Studien xu Kult und Glauben der Romer,
176-204. Nuremberg, 1960)

Koeppel, G. M. ‘Die historischen Reliefs der romischen Kaiserzeit IT’, BJ
184 (1984) 1-65

La Rocca, E. La riva a mezzaluna. Culti, agoni, monumenti funerari presso il
Tevere nel Campo Marvzio occidentale. Rome, 1984

Ladage, D. ‘Stadtischer Priester- und Kultimter im lateinischen Westen
des Imperium Romanum zur Kaiserzeit’. Diss., Cologne, 1971
Lambrechts, P. ‘Cybéle, divinité étrangére ou nationale?’, Société royale
belge d anthropologie et de prébistoire 62 (1951) 44-60

Lambrechts, P. ‘Les fétes “‘phrygiennes’”’ de Cybéle et d’Attis’, Bulletin de
P Institut historique belge de Rome 27 (1952) 141-70

Latte, K. ‘Uber eine Eigentiimlichkeit der italischen Gottesvorstellung’,
Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft 24 (1926/7) 244-58 (= Kleine Schriften, 76-
go. Munich, 1968)

Latte, K. Rémische Religionsgeschichte. Munich, 1960

Le Gall, J. ‘Les Romains et orientation solaire’, MEFRA 87 (1975)
287-320

Levi, M. A. ‘Il ciclo religioso augusteo e i! superamento delle guerre
civili’, CIS.A 10 (1984) 181-93

Lewis, M. W. H. The Official Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians
(Papers and Monographs of the Amer. Acad. Rome 16). Rome, 1955

1118

174.
175.

176.
177:

178.

179.
_ 180.

181.

182.

183.

184.
185.

186.

187.
188.

189.

190.

191.

192.

194.
195.
196.

197.
198.

F. SOCIETY, RELIGION, CULTURE

Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. Continuity and Change in Roman Religion.
Oxford, 1979

Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. ‘The religious position of Livy’s History’, JRS
57 (1967) 45-55

Liidemann, G. Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Minneapolis, 1989
McBain, B. Prodigy and Expiation: a Study in Religion and Politics in
Republican Rome (Coll. Latomus 177). Brussels, 1982

MacDonald, M. Y. The Pauline Churches: a Socio-Historical Study of
Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings. Cambridge,
1988

MacMullen R. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven—London, 1981
Magdelain, A. Recherches sur [Imperium’, la loi curiate et les auspices
@ investiture. Paris, 1968

Magdelain, A. ‘L’inauguration de l’urbs et Pimperium’, MEFRA 89
(1977) 11-29

Malherbe, A. J. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. 2nd edn. Philadelphia,
1983

Meeks, W. A. The First Urban Christians. The Social World of the Apostle
Paul. New Haven, 1983

Meeks, W. A. The Moral World of the First Christians. Philadelphia, 1986
Meeks, W. A. and Wilkens, R. L. Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First
Four Centuries of the Common Era. Missoula, MT, 1978

Mellor, R. ODEA PQMH: the Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek
World (Hypomnemata 42). Gottingen, 1975

Merkelbach, R. ‘Aeneas in Cumae’, MH 18 (1961) 83-99

Meslin, M. L’homme romain, des origines au 1° siécle de notre ére. Essai
d anthropologie. Paris, 1978

Momigliano, A. D. Review of Sherwin-White, A. N. The Roman
Citizenship (Oxford, 1939), JRS 31 (1941) 158-65

Niebling, G. ‘Laribus Augustis magistri primi. Der Beginn des
Compitalkultes der Lares und des Genius Augusti’, Hist. 5 (1956) 303-31
Nilsson, M. P. ‘Saeculares ludi’, RE 1 A (1920) 1696-720

Nock, A. D. ‘Religious developments from the close of the Republic to
the reign of Nero’, CAH x!, 465~—511. Cambridge, 1934

. Nock, A. D. ‘The Roman army and the Roman religious year’, HTR 45

(1952) 186-252 (= Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, 736—g0. 2 vols.
Oxford, 1972)

North, J. “Conservatism and change in Roman religion’, PBSR 44 (1976)
I-12

North, J. ‘Religion and politics, from Republic to Principate’, JRS 76
(1986) 251-8

O’Connor, D. W. Peter in Rome. The Literary, Liturgical and Archaeological
Evidence. New York—London, 1969

Pettazzoni, R. ‘La religione’, inc 12a, 217-49

Potscher, W. ‘““Numen” und ‘“Numen Augusti”’, ANRW II, 16.1
(1978) 355-92

199.

200.

201.

202.

203.

204.

205.

206.

207.
208.

209.

211.

212.
213.

214.

215.

216.

217.
218.

219.

220.
221.

223.

RELIGION I119

Price, S. R. F. Rituals and Power: the Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor.
Cambridge, 1984

Price, S. R. F. ‘From noble funerals to divine cult: the consecration of
Roman emperors’, in F 109, 56-105

Price, S. R. F. ‘The City of Rome’, in Beard, M., North, J. and Price, S.
(eds.) Religions of Rome 1. Cambridge, 1996

Raubitschek, A. E. ‘Octavia’s deification at Athens’, TAPA 77 (1946)
146-50

Rawson, E. D. ‘Scipio, Laelius, and the ancestral religion’, JRS 63 (1973)
161-74

Richard, J.-C. ‘Les funérailles de Trajan et le triomphe sur les Parthes’,
REL 44 (1966) 351-62

Ristow, G. ‘Gétter und Kulte in den Rheinlanden’, in Romer am Rhein,
57-69. Cologne, 1967

Roberts, C. H. Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt.
London, 1979

Rohde, G. Die Kultsatzungen der romischen Pontifices. RVV 25 (Berlin, 1936)
Rowland, C. Christian Origins: from Messianic Movement to Christian
Religion. London, 1985

Ryberg, I. S. Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art (MAAR 22). Rome,

1955

. Sabbatucci, D. ‘Mito e demitizzazione nell’antica Roma’, SMSR 41

(= Religione ¢ civilta 1 (1970-2) 539-89)

Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: a Comparison of Patterns of
Religion. London, 1977

Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. London, 1985

Sanders, E. P. et al. (eds.) Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. 3 vols.
Philadelphia, 1980-2

Santero, J. M. ‘The “Cultores Augusti” and the first worship of the
Roman emperor’, Athenaeum 61 (1983) 111-25

Saulnier, C. ‘Le rdle des prétres fétiaux et l’application du “‘ius fetiale” a
Rome’, RHDFE 58 (1980) 171-90

Saulnier, C. ‘Laurens Lavinas. Quelques remarques 4 propos d’un
sacerdoce équestre 4 Rome’, Latomus 43 (1984) 517-33

Scheid, J. Religion et piété ad Rome. Paris, 1985

Scheid, J. ‘Les sanctuaires de confins dans la Rome antique’, in A 96,
83-95

Schilling, R. ‘Ovide interpréte de la religion romaine’, REL 46 (1969)
222-35. (= Rites, cultes, dieux de Rome, 11-22. Paris, 1979)

Schippman, K. Die iranischen Feuerheiligtiimer. Berlin, 1971

Scholz, U. W. Studien zum altitalischen und altrimischen Marskult und
Marsmythos. Heidelberg, 1970

. Scott, K. ‘The identification of Augustus with Romulus-Quirinus’,

TAPA 56 (1925) 82-105
Scullard, H. H. Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. London,
1981

I120 F. SOCIETY, RELIGION, CULTURE

224. Segal, A. F. Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World.

225.

226,
227.
228.

229.
230.

231.
232.

233.
234.
235.
236.

237.
238.

239.
240.
241.
242.

243.

244.
245.

246.

Cambridge, MA—London, 1986

Syme, R. ‘The pomerium in the Historia Augusta’, Bonner Historia Augusta
Congress 197 5-6 (1978) 21 7ff (= Historia Augusta Papers, 131-45. Oxford,
1983)

Tamassia, A. M. ‘Iscrizioni del Compitum Acili’, BC_AR 78 (1961-2)
158-63

Teixidor, J. The Pagan God. Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman Near East.
Princeton, 1977

Theissen, G. The First Followers of Jesus: a Sociological Analysis of the
Earliest Christians. London, 1978

Theissen, G. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Philadelphia, 1982
Van Doren, M. ‘L’évolution des mystéres phrygiens a Rome’, AC 22
(1953) 79-88

Vermes, G. Jesus the Jew. London, 1976

Versnel, H. S. ‘Die neve Inschrift von Satricum in historischer Sicht’,
Gym. 89 (1982) 193-235

Warde Fowler, W. The Religious Experience of the Roman People. London,
1911

Watson, F. Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles. Cambridge, 1986

Weinstock, S. Diuus Iulius. Oxford, 1971

Whatmough, J. ‘The calendar in ancient Italy outside Rome’, HSCP 42
(1931) 157-79

Wiedemann, T. ‘The Fefiales: a reconsideration’, CQ 36 (1986) 478-90
Wilhelm, J. ‘Das rémische Sakralwesen unter Augustus als Pontifex
Maximus’. Diss., Strasburg, 1915

Winter, J. G. ‘The myth of Hercules at Rome’, in Sanders, H. A. (ed.)
Roman History and Mythology, 171-273. London, 1910

Wiseman, T. P. ‘Cybele, Virgil and Augustus’, in B 204, 117-28.
Cambridge, 1984

Wissowa, G. Religion und Kultus der Romer. 2nd edn. Munich, 1912; repr.
1971

Wissowa, G. ‘Die rdmischen Staatspriestertiimer altlateinischer
Gemeindekulte’, Hermes 50 (1915) 1-33

Zanker, P. ‘Der Larenaltar im Belvedere des Vatikans’, MDAI(R) 76

(1969) 205-18

3. ART AND ARCHITECTURE

Albert, R. Das Bild des Augustus auf den frithen Reichsprdgungen. Studien zur
Vergéttlichung des ersten Prinzeps (Diss., Mannheim, 1980). Speyer, 1981
Albertson, F. C. ‘An Augustan temple represented on a historical relief
dating to the time of Claudius’, AJA 91 (1987) 441-50

Alféldi, A. Der Vater des Vaterlandes im rémischen Denken. (Contains his
papers ‘Die Geburt der kaiserlichen Bildsymbolik’ from MH 7 (1950) 1-
13; 8 (1951) 190-215; 9 (1952) 204~43; 10 (1953) 103-24; 11 (19§4) 133-
69.) Darmstadt, 1971

248.
249.

250.
251.
252.

253.
254.

255.
256.

257.
258.

259.
260.

261.
262.
263.
264.
265.
266.
267.

268.
269.

270.

271.

ART AND ARCHITECTURE 1121

. Alféldi, A. Die monarchische Reprasentation im rémischen Kaiserreiche. 3rd

edn. (Contains his papers ‘Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen
Zeremoniells am rémischen Kaiserhofe’, MD_AI(R) 49 (1934) 3-118
and ‘Insignien und Tracht der rémischen Kaiser’, MD_AI(R) $0 (1935)
3-158.) Darmstadt, 1970

Alzinger, W. Axugusteische Architektur in Ephesos. Vienna, 1974
Amelung, W. and Lippold, G. Die Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Museums. 4
vols. Berlin, 1903~56

Anderson, M. L. ‘The portrait medallions of the imperial villa at
Boscotrecase’, AJA 91 (1987) 127-35

Anderson, W. J., Spiers, R. P. and Ashby, T. The Architecture of Ancient
Rome. London, 1927

Andreae, B. ‘Der Zyklus der Odysseefresken im Vatikan’, MD AI(R) 69
(1962) 106-17

Andreae, B. Rémische Kunst. Freiburg, 1973

Architecture et société de Parchaisme a la fin de la république romaine (Atti del
Colloquio di Roma). Rome, 1983

Arias, P. E. ‘Teatro e odeon’, s.v. in EAA vir. Rome, 1966

L’art décoratif a Rome a la fin de la République et au début du Principat. Rome,
1981

Ashby, T. The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome. Oxford, 1935

Astolfi, F., Bauer, H., Guidobaldi, F. and Pronti, A. ‘Horrea
Agrippiana’, ArchClass 30 (1978) 31-146

Aymard, A. and Auboyer, J. Rome et son empire. Paris, 1954

Bacchielli, L. ‘Le porte romane ad ordini sovrapposti e antecedenti
greci’, MD.AI(R) 91 (1984) 79ff

Barbet, A. Recueil général des peintures murales de la Gaule: 1 Province de
Narbonnaise 1, Glanum (Gallia Suppl. 27). Paris, 1974

Barbet, A. La peinture murale romaine. Les styles décoratifs pompéins. Paris,
1985

Bartels, H. Studien zum Frauenportrat der augusteischen Zeit. Fulvia, Octavia,
Livia, Julia. Munich, 1963

Bastet, F. L. ‘Domus transitoria. I’, BABesch 46 (1971) 144-72; 0,
BABesch 47 (1972) 61-87

Bastet, F. L. and Vos, M. de. Proposta per una classificazione del terzo stile
pompeiano. The Hague, 1979

Bauplanung und Bautheorie der Antike (Deutsches Archaol. Inst.,
Diskussionen zur archdologischen Bauforschung 4). Berlin, 1984
Becatti, G. ‘Le varie correnti artistiche dei periodi sillano e cesariano e la
formazione dell’arte romana’, in L’efa classica, 291-385. Florence, 1965
Becatti, G. L’arte romana. Milan, 1962

Bejor, G. ‘L’edificio teatrale nell’urbanizzazione augustea’, Athenaeum 57
(1979) 126-38

Bernoulli, J. J. Réwische Ikonographie 1-111. Stuttgart, 1882~94; repr.
Hildesheim, 1969

Beyen, H. G. Die pompeianische Wanddekoration vom zweiten bis gum vierten
Stilt (1938); 11. 1 (1960). Haag

1122

272.
273.

274.
275.
276.

277.

278.
279.

280.
281.

282.
283.

284.
285.
286,
287.
288.
289.
290.
291.
292.
293.
294.
295.
296.
297.

298.

299.

F. SOCIETY, RELIGION, CULTURE

Beyen, H. G. ‘Pompeiani, Stili’, s.v. in EAA vi. Rome, 1965
Bianchi Bandinelli, R. Storicita del? arte classica. Florence, 1943; repr. Bari,

1973

Bianchi Bandinelli, R. ‘Romana Arte’, s.v. in EAA vi. Rome, 1965
Bianchi Bandinelli, R. Rome, le centre du pouvoir. Paris, 1969 (= Roma.
L’arte romana nel centro del potere. Milan, 1969; = Rome, the Centre of Power:
Roman Art to a.p. 200. London, 1970)

Bianchi Bandinelli, R. ‘Noterella in margine ai problemi della pittura
antica’, in F 273, 245ff

Bianchi Bandinelli, R. ‘Tradizione ellenistica e gusto romano nella
pittura pompeiana’, in F 273, 273ff

Bianchi Bandinelli, R. Dal? Ellenismo al Medioevo. Rome, 1978

Bianchi Bandinelli, R. ‘Sulla formazione del ritratto romano’, in
Archeologia e cultura, 164ff. Rome, 1979

Bianchi Bandinelli, R. La pittura antica. Rome, 1980

Bianchi Bandinelli, R. and Torelli, M. L’arte delPantichita classica,
Etruria—Roma. Turin, 1976

Bieber, M. The History of the Greek and Roman Theater. Princeton, 1961
Bieber, M. Ancient Copies. Contributions to the History of Greek and Roman
Art. New York, 1977

Blake, M. E. ‘The pavements of the Roman Republic and the early
Empire’, MAAR vit (1930) 5ff

Blake, M. E. Ancient Roman Construction in Italy from Tiberius through the
Flavians. Washington, 1959

Blanck, H. Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehrendenkmdler bei Griechen
und Rémern. Rome, 1969

Blanckenhagen, H. von, and Alexander, C. The Paintings from Boscotrecase.
Heidelberg, 1962

Bloch, H. I bolli laterizi ela storia edilizia romana. Rome, 1947
Boatwright, M. T. Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton, 1987
Boethius, A. The Golden House of Nero: Some Aspects of Roman Architecture.
Ann Arbor, 1960

Boethius, A. and Ward-Perkins, J. B. Etruscan and Roman Architecture.
Harmondsworth, 1970

Bonanno, A. Portraits and Other Heads on Historical Reliefs up to the Age of
Septimius Severus (BAR Supplementary Series 6). Oxford, 1976
Bonnefond, M. ‘Transferts de fonctions et mutation idéologique: le
Capitole et le Forum d’ Auguste’, in a 96, 251-78

Borbein, A. H. ‘Die Ara Pacis Augustae. Geschichtliche Wirklichkeit
und Programm’, JDAI 90 (1975) 242-66

Borchhardt, }. ‘Ein Kenotaph fiir Gaius Caesar’, JD.AI 89 (1974) 217-41
Borda, M. La pittura romana. Milan, 1958

Bragantini, I. and Vos, M. de Museo Nazionale Romano. Le pitture: 11. 1. Le
decorazioni della villa romana della Farnesina. Rome, 1982

Breckenridge, J. D. ‘Roman Imperial portraiture from Augustus to
Gallienus’, ANRW II, 12. 2 (1981) 477-92

Brendel, O. Prolegomena to the Study of Roman Art. New Haven—London,

1979

300.
301.

302.
393.

304.
305.
306.
307.
308.
309.

310.
311.

313.
314.
315.
316.
317.
318.
319.

320.

321.

323.
324.
325.

326.

ART AND ARCHITECTURE 1123

Brilliant, R. Gesture and Rank in Roman Art. The Use of Gesture to Denote
Status in Roman Sculpture. New Haven, 1963

Brommer, P. ‘Zur Datierung des Augustus von Primaporta’, in F 3564,
78-80

Brown, F. E. Roman Architecture. New York, 1961

Brunn, H. and Arndt, P. Griechische und rémische Portrats, edited by F.
Bruckmann and G. Lippold. Munich, 1891-1942

Buchner, E. ‘Solarium Augusti und Ara Pacis’, MDAI(R) 83 (1976)
319-65

Buchner, E. ‘Horologium Solarium Augusti’, MDAI(R) 87 (1980)
355-73

Buchner, E. Die Sonnenubr des Augustus. Mainz, 1982 (Contains E 304 (pp.
7-55) and E 305 (pp. 57-77)

Buchner, E. ‘Horologium Augusti: Neue Ausgrabungen in Rom’, Gyan.
90 (1983) 494-508

Cagiano de Azevedo, M. ‘I capitolia dell’impero romano’, MPAA ser. 3
(1940)

Cagnat, R. and Chapot, V. Manuel @archéologie romaine. 2 vols. Paris,
1916-20

Calci, C. and Messineo, G. La villa di Livia a Prima Porta. Rome, 1984
Camodeca, G. ‘Una nuova fonte sulla topografia del foro di Augusto’,
Athenaeum 74 (1986) 505-8

. Carandini, A. ‘Domus e insulae sulla pendice settentrionale del Palatino’,

BCAR 91.2 (1986) 263-78

Carandini, A. and Ricci, A. (eds.) Settefinestre. Una villa schiavistica
nelf Etruria romana. Modena, 1985

Carettoni, G. ‘Nuove pitture del Palatino’, BdA 4o (1955) 210ff
Carettoni, G. ‘Roma. Le costruzioni di Augusto e il tempio di Apollo sul
Palatino’ (ArchLag 1), Quaderni del centro di studi per Parcheologia etrusco-
italica 1 (1978) 72-4

Carettoni, G. Das Haus des Augustus auf dem Palatin, Mainz, 1983
Carettoni, G. ‘La decorazione pittorica della casa di Augusto sul
Palatino’, MD-AI(R) 90 (1983) 373-419

Castagnoli, F. (ed.) Studi di urbanistica antica. Rome, 1966

Castagnoli, F. ‘Sul tempio “italico”’, MDAI(R) 73-4 (1966-7) 10-14
Castagnoli, F. Orthogonal Town-Planning in Antiquity. Cambridge, MA,
1971

Cavalieri Manasse, G. La decorazione architettonica romana ad’ Aquileia,
Trieste, Pola: 1. L’eta repubblicana, augustea e giulio-claudia. Padua, 1978

. Cerulli Irelli, G. ‘Le pitture della Casa dell’ Atrio a mosaico’, MonPits II,

vol. Ercolano I. Rome, 1971

Chamoux, F. ‘Un portrait de Thasos, Lucius Caesar’, MMAI 44 (1950)
83-96

Chamoux, F. ‘Nouveaux portraits des fils d’Agrippa’, R.A 37 (1951)
218-20

Chamoux, F. ‘Un nouveau portrait de Gaius César découvert 4 Mayence’,
BSNAF (1963) 205-6

Charbonneaux, J. L’art au siécle d Auguste. Paris, 1948

1124
327.
328.
329.
330.
331.

332.
333-

334.
335.
336.

337-
338.

339.
340.

341.

342.
343-
344.

345.
346.

347:

348.
349-

350.
351.

352.

F. SOCIETY, RELIGION, CULTURE

Charbonneaux, J. ‘Un portrait présumé de Marcellus’, MMAI 51 (1960)
53-72

Cima, M. and La Rocca, E. Le tranquille dimore degli dei; la residenza
imperiale degli horti Lamiani. Venice, 1986

La citta di fondazione (Atti del II Congresso internaz. di studi di
urbanistica). Vicenza, 1978

Citta e architettura della Roma imperiale (ARID Supplement 10). Odense,
1983

Clavel, M. and Lévéque, P. Villes et structures urbaines dans POccident
romain. Paris, 1971

Coarelli, F. Guida Archaeologica di Roma. Milan, 1981

Coarelli, F. ‘Il Panteon, l’apoteosi di Augusto e l’apoteosi di Romolo’, in
F 330, 41-6

Colini, A. M. ‘Compitum Acili’, BCAR 78 (1961-2) 47-57

Colledge, M. A. R. The Art of Palmyra. London, 1976

Corlaita Scagliarini, D. ‘Spazio e decorazione nella pittura pompeiana’,
Palladio 23-5 (1974-6) 3

Crema, L. Architettura romana. Turin, 1959

Cristofani, M. ‘Sul rinvenimento dell’Arringatore’, Prospettiva 45 (1986-
7) 56-7

Croisille, J. M. Les natures mortes campaniennes. Brussels, 1965

Les eryptoportiques dans Parchitecture romaine (Collection école frangaise de
Rome 14) 1973

Curtius, L. ‘Ikonographische Beitrige zum Portraét der rémischen
Republik und der julisch-claudischen Familie’, MD.AI(R) 47 (1932)
202-68; 48 (1933) 182-243; 49 (1934) 119-36; $0 (1935) 260-320; 54
(1939) 112-443 $5 (1940) 36-64; Mal 1 (1948) 53-94

Dacos, N. ‘Fabullus et l’autre peintre de la Domus Aurea’, MEFRA 80
(1968) 85ff }
Danson, C. M. Romano-Campanian Mythological Landscape Painting. Yale,
1944

Darmon, J. P. ‘Les mosaiques en Occident, I’, ANRW II, 12. 2 (1981)
266-319

Daut, R. Imago. Untersuchungen zum Bildbegriff der Romer. Heidelberg, 1975
Degrassi, A. ‘Virgilio e il foro di Augusto’, Epigraphica 7 (1945) 88-103
( = Scritti vari di antichita 1, 283-97. Rome, 1962)

Degrassi, N. ‘La dimora di Augusto sul Palatino e la base di Sorrento’,
RPAA 39 (1966-7) 77-116

Deman, E. B. van The Building of the Roman Aqueducts. Washington, 1934
Deppert-Lippitz, B. ‘R6mischer Goldschmuck. Stand der Forschung’,
ANRW OT, 12. 3 (1985) 117-26

Dondin-Payre, M. ‘Topographie et propagande gentilice: le compitum
Acilium et Vorigine des Acilti Glabriones’, in A 96, 87-109

Drerup, H. Zam Ausstattungsluxus in der rimischen Architektur. Minster,
1957

Drerup, H. ‘Die rémische Villa’, in Marburger Winckelmann-Programm, 1—
24. Marburg, 1959

353+
354.
355.
356.
356A.

357-
358.
359-

360.
361.

362.
363.

364.
365.

366.
367.
368.
369.
370.
371.
372.
373-
374.
375-
376.
377-

378.
379-

ART AND ARCHITECTURE 1125

Drerup, H. ‘Architektur als Symbol’, Gyzmm. 73 (1966) 181-96

Ducati, P. L’arte in Roma dalle origini al secolo VII. Bologna, 1938
Duval, P.-M. and Frézouls, E. (eds.) Thémes de recherches sur les villes
antiques d Occident. Paris, 1977

Eck, W., Fittschen, K. and Naumann, F. Kaisersaal. Portrdts aus den
kapitolinischen Museen in Rom. Rome, 1986

Eikones. Studien zum griechischen und rimischen Bildnis (Studien Hans
Jucker) (Antike Kunst Beiheft 12). Berne, 1980

Eisner, M. Zur Typologie der Grabbauten im Suburbium Roms. Mainz, 1986
Elia, O. Pitture di Stabia. Naples, 1957

Engemann, j. -Architekturdarstellungen des frithen Zweiten Stils.
Ilusionistische rémische Wandmalerei der ersten Phase und ihre Vorbilder in der
realen Architektur. Heidelberg, 1967

Evans, H. B. ‘Agrippa’s water plan’, AJA 86 (1982) 401-11

Fabbrini, L. ‘Marco Vipsanio Agrippa. Concordanze e discordanze
iconografiche. Nuovi contributi’, in F 356A, 96-107

Felletti Maj, B. M. La tradizione italica nell arte romana. Rome, 1977
Felletti Maj, B. M. and Moreno, P. C. ‘Le pitture della casa delle Muse’,
MonPitt Il, vol. Ostia III. Rome, 1967

Fittschen, K. Katalog der antiken Skulpturen in Schloss Erbach. Berlin, 1977
Fittschen, K. and Zanker, P. Katalog der rimischen Portrats in den
Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt
Rom: 1. Kaiser- und Prinzenbildnisse. Mainz 1985; ut. Kaiserin- und
Pringessinnenbildnisse. Mainz, 1983

Flory, M. B. ‘“‘Sic exempla parantur’’: Livia’s shrine to Concordia and
the Porticus Liviae’, Hist. 33 (1984) 309-30

Forni, G. ‘Anfiteatro’, s.v. in EAA 1. Rome, 1958

Forni, G. ‘Teatro’, s.v. in EAA Suppl. Rome, 1970

Franciscis, A. de La villa romana di Oplontis. Recklinghausen, 1977
Fraschetti, A. ‘La mort d’Agrippa et l’autel du Belvédére. Un certain type
d’hommage’, MEFRA 92 (1980) 957-76

Fraschetti, A. ‘Morti dei “principi” ed “‘eroi” della famiglia di Augusto’,
AION (Archeol) 6 (1984) 151-89

Freyer-Schauenburg, B. ‘Augustus capite uelatus. Zu _ einer
unpublizierten Portratbisste von Samos’, in A 55a, 1-8

Frézouls, E. ‘Aspects de histoire architecturale du théatre romain’,
ANRW II, 12. 1 (1982) 343-441

Frova, A. L’arte di Roma e del mondo romano. Turin, 1961

Fuchs, M. Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung romischer Theater. Mainz, 1987
Fullerton, M. D. ‘The Domus Augusti in imperial iconography of 13-12
B.C.’, AJA 89 (1985) 473-83

Gabelmann, H. ‘Rémische Grabbauten in Italien und den
Nordprovinzen’, in Festschr. F. Brommer, 101-17. Mainz, 1977
Gabriel, M. M. Livia’s Garden Room at Prima Porta. New York, 1955
Gagé, J. ‘L’era del principato e le speculazioni astrologiche’, in a 82a,
223-35

1126
380.
381.

382.
383.

384.

385.

386.

387.

388.

389.
390.

391.
392.

393.
394.

396.
397.

398.
399-

399A.

400.
4ol.

402.
403.
404.
405.

F. SOCIETY, RELIGION, CULTURE

Gallina, A. Le pitture con paesaggi del Odissea dalf Esquilino (Studi Mise. 6
(1960-1)). Rome, 1964

Ganzert, J. ‘Der Mars-Ultor-Tempel auf dem Augustusforum in Rom’,
MDAI(R) 92 (1985) 200-19

Garcia y Bellido, A. Arte romano, Madrid, 1957

Gasparri, C. ‘Le pitture della caupona del pavone’, MonPitt III, vol. Ostia
IV. Rome, 1970

Gazzola, P. I ponti romani 1-11. Florence, 1963

Gercke, W. B. ‘Untersuchungen zum rémischen Kinderportrat von den
Anfangen bis in hadrianische Zeit’. Diss., Hamburg, 1968

Gerkan, A. von ‘Griechische und Rémische Architektur’, BJ 152 (1952)
21-6

Giuliani, C. F. ‘Note sull’architettura delle residenze imperiali dal I al III
secolo d. Cr.’, ANRW II, 12.1 (1982) 233-58

Giuliano, A. Catalogo dei ritratti romani del Museo Profano Lateranense.
Vatican City, 1957

Gnoli, R. Marmora romana. Rome, 1971

Goethert, F. W. ‘Studien zur Kopienforschung’, MD_AI(R) 54 (1939)
176ff

Golvin, J.-C. L’amphithéatre romain, CNRS. Paris, 1988

Grieco, G. ‘A propos de la statue d’Auguste de Prima Porta.
Confirmation de la thése de la création Tibérienne...’, Latomus 38 (1979)
147-64

Grimal, P. Les jardins romains. Paris, 1969; repr. 1984

Grimm, G. ‘Die Portrats der Triumvirn ... Uberlegungen zur
Entstehung und Abfolge der Bildnistypen des Kaisers Augustus’,
MDAI(R) 96 (1989) 347-64

. Gros, P. ‘Trois temples de la Fortune des I et II siecles de notre ére.

Remarques sur |’origine des sanctuaires romains 4 abside’, MEFRA 79
(1967) 503-66

Gros, P. ‘Hermodoros et Vitruve’, MEFRA 85 (1973) 137-61

Gros, P. Aurea templa: recherches sur Parchitecture religieuse de Rome al époque
@ Auguste (BEF AR 231). Paris, 1976

Gros, P. Architecture et société a Rome et en Italie centro-méridionale aux deux
derniers siécles de la république (Coll. Latomus 156). Brussels, 1978

Gros, P. ‘La fonction symbolique des édifices théatraux dans le paysage
urbain de la Rome augustéenne’, in A 96, 319-46

Gros, P. and Torelli, M. Storia dell urbanistica antica. Il mondo romano.
Rome-Bari, 1988

Gross, W. H. Zur Augustusstatue von Primaporta. Gottingen, 1959
Gross, W. H. Iulia Augusta. Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung einer Livia-
Tkonographie. GOttingen, 1962

Gusman, P. L’art décoratif de Rome. 2 vols. Paris, 1912

Hafner, G. Spathellenistische Bildnisplastik. Berlin, 1954

Hammond, M. The City in the Ancient World. Cambridge, MA, 1972
Hanell, K. ‘Das Opfer des Augustus an der Ara Pacis. Eine
archdologische und historische Untersuchung’, ORom 2 (Lund, 1960)
33-123

406.
407.

408.
409.
410.
411.
412.
413.
414.
415.

416.
417.

419.
420.
421.
422.
423.
424.
425.
426.
427.
428.
429.

430.
431.

432.

433.

434.

ART AND ARCHITECTURE 1127

Hanfmann, G. M. A. Rémische Kunst. Wiesbaden, 1964; transl. as £ 407
Hanfmann, G. M. A. Roman Art: a Modern Survey of the Art of Imperial
Rome. Greenwich—New York, 1964

Hanlein-Schafer, H. Veneratio Augusti. Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des ersten
romischen Kaisers (Archaeologica 39). Rome, 1985

Hannestad, H. Roman Art and Imperial Policy. Aarhus, 1986

Hanson, J. A. Roman Theater-Temples. Princeton, 1959

Harden, D. B. (ed.) Glass of the Caesars. Milan, 1987

Hassel, F. J. Der Trajansbogen in Benevent. Ein Bauwerk des rimischen Senates.
Mainz, 1966

Hausmann, U. ‘Zur Typologie und Ideologie des Augustus-Portrats’,
ANRW II, 12.2 (1981) 513-98

Heintze, H. von Die antiken Portrats in Schloss Fasanerie bei Fulda. Mainz,
1968

Heintze, H. von Rémische Kunst. Stuttgart, 1969

Heintze, H. von (ed.) Rémische Portrats. Darmstadt, 1974

Helbig, W. Fuhrer durch die éffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertiimer in
Rom 1-1v. 1963-72

. Hesberg, H. von and Zanker, P. (eds.) Rémische Graberstrassen. Munich,

1987

Himmelmann, N. ‘Das Hypogéum der Aurelier am Viale Manzoni’,
AAWM 7 (1975)

Holland, L. A. ‘The shrine of the Lares Compitales’, TAP.A 68 (1937)
428-41

Holloway, R. R. ‘The tomb of Augustus and the princes of Troy’, AJ.A
70 (1966) 171-3

Holscher, T. Victoria Romana. Mainz, 1967

Hdlscher, T. ‘Zu romischen historischen Denkmilern’, 4A (1979) 337-48
Holscher, T. Staatsdenkmal und Publikum. Xenia (Konstanger alt-historische
Vortrage und Forschungen) 9. Konstanz, 1984

Hommel, P. Studien zu den rimischen Figurengiebeln der Kaiserzeit. Berlin,
1954

Honle, A. and Henze, A. Rémische Amphitheater und Stadien. Zurich, 1981
Humphrey, J. Roman Circuses: Arenas for Chariot-Racing. London, 1986
Inan, J. and Rosenbaum, E. Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture
in Asia Minor. London, 1966

Ingholt, H. ‘The Prima Porta statue of Augustus. The interpretation of
the breastplate’, Archaeology 22 (1969) 176-87, 304-18

Instinsky, H. U. Die Siegel des Kaisers Augustus. Baden-Baden, 1962
Johansen, F. S. ‘Ritratti marmorei e bronzei di Marco Vipsanio
Agrippa’, ARID 6 (1971) 17-48

Jones, Stuart H. A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the
Municipal Collections of Rome: 1. The Sculptures of the Museo Capitolino.
Oxford, 1926; 11. Palazzo dei Conservatori. Oxford, 1926; repr. Rome, 1968
Jucker, H. Vom Verhaltnis der Romer zur bildenden Kunst der Griechen.
Frankfurt, 1950

Jucker, H. Das Bildnis im Blatterkelch. Olten, 1961

1128

435-
436.
437-
438.
439.
440.
441.
442.
443.

444.

446.
447.

448.
449.

450.

451.
452.
453-
454.

454A.
455.
456.
457-

458.

F. SOCIETY, RELIGION, CULTURE

Jucker, H. ‘Rémische Herrscherbildnisse aus Agypten’, ANRW II, 12.
2 (1981) 667-97

Jucker, H. ‘Tulisch-claudische Kaiser- und Prinzenportrats als
“‘Palimpseste”’, JD_AI 96 (1981) 236-316

Jucker, H. and Willers, D. (eds.) Gesichter: Griechische und rémische Bildnisse
aus Schweitzer Besitz. Berne, 1982

Kahler, H. ‘Triumph- und Ehrenbogen’, s.v. in RE vi1A I. Stuttgart,
1939

Kahler, H. ‘Die Ara Pacis und die augusteische Friedensidee’, ]DAI 69
(1954) 67-100

Kahler, H. ‘Der Augustus von Primaporta’, Gyn. 63 (1956) 345-50
Kahler, H. Die Augustusstatue von Prima Porta. Cologne, 1959

Kahler, H. Der rémische Tempel. Berlin, 1970

Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik. Eine Ausstellung im Martin-
Gropius-Bau. Berlin, 7 Juni-14 August 1988. (No editor stated.) Mainz, 1988
Kaschnitz von Weinberg, G. Ausgewablte Schriften 1. Rémische Bildnisse,
edited by G. Kleiner and H. von Heintze. Berlin, 1956

. Kaschnitz von Weinberg, G. Zwischen Republik und Kaiserreiche.

Hamburg, 1961

Kaschnitz von Weinberg, G. Rémische Kunst. 4 vols. Hamburg, 1961-3
Kersauson, K. de Musée du Louvre. Catalogue des portraits romains: 1.
Portraits de la République et @ époque Julio-Claudienne. Paris, 1986

Kiss, Z. L’iconographie des princes julio-claudiens aux temps d’ Auguste et de
Tibére. Warsaw, 1975

Kleiner, D. E. E. Roman Group Portraiture. The Funerary Reliefs of the Late
Republic and the Early Empire. New York, 1977

Kleiner, D. E. E. ‘The great friezes of the Ara Pacis Augustae: Greek
sources, Roman derivatives, and Augustan social policy’, MEFRA 90,2
(1978) 753-85

Kluge, K. and Lehmann-Hartleben, K. Die antiken Grossbronzen. Berlin,
1927

Kockel, V. ‘Beobachtungen zum Tempel des Mars Ultor und zum
Forum des Augustus’, MDAI(R) 90 (1983) 421-48

Koeppel, G. ‘Official state reliefs of the city of Rome in the Imperial age.
A bibliography’, ANRW II, 12. 1 (1982) 480-9

Koeppel, G. ‘The grand pictorial tradition of Roman historical
representation during the early empire’, ANRW’'II, 12. 1 (1982) 507-35
Koeppel, G. ‘Die historischen Reliefs der R6mischen Kaiserzeit’, BJ 183
(1983) 61-144

Koeppel, G. ‘Die historischen Reliefs der romischen Kaiserzeit V, Ara
Pacis Augustae’, Pt. 1, BJ 187 (1987) 101-57; Pt. 2, BJ 188 (1988) 97-106
Kraft, K. ‘Der Sinn des Mausoleums des Augustus’, Hist. 16 (1967) 189-
206 (= Kleine Schriften 1 (Darmstadt, 1973), 29-46)

Kraus, T. ‘Das romische Weltreich’, in Propylaen Kunstgeschichte 1. Berlin,
1967

Krause, C. ‘Rapporti di lavoro’, in Domus Tiberiana: nuove ricerche, studi di
restauro, 73-136. Zurich, 1985

459-
460.

461.
462.
463.

464.
465.
466.
467.

468.
469.

470.
471.

472.
473.

474.
475-
476.

477:

478.
479:

480.
481.

482.
483.
484.
485.

486.
487.

ART AND ARCHITECTURE 1129

La Rocca, E. ‘Sculture frontonali del tempio di Apollo Sosiano: notizia
preliminare’, BCAR 87 (1980-1) 57-73

La Rocca, E. L’eta @oro di Cleopatra. Indagine sulla tazza Farnese. Rome,
1984

Lahusen, G. Untersuchungen zur rémischen Ebrenstatue in Rom. Rome, 1983
Lambrechts, P. ‘Auguste et la religion romaine’, Latomus 6 (1947) 177-91
Lambrechts, P. ‘La politique apollinienne d’ Auguste et le culte impérial’,
NClio 5 (Mélanges Carnoy) (1953) 65-82

Lancha, J. Mosaiques géometriques. Les ateliers de Vienne. Rome, 1977
Leach, E. W. ‘Patrons, painter and patterns’, in A 39A

Lefevre, E. Das Bild-Programm des Apollo-Tempels auf dem Palatin
(Konstanzer althistorische Vortrige und Forschungen 24). Constance,
1989

Levi, M. A. ‘Il regno degli api e la ‘“domus Augusta’’, PP 38 (1983)
327-46

Licht, K. de Fine. The Rotunda in Rome. Copenhagen, 1966

Ling, R. J. ‘Studius and the beginnings of Roman landscape painting’,
JRS 67 (1977) 1-16

Ling, R. Roman Painting. Cambridge, 1991

Lippold, G. Gem men und Kameen des Altertums und der Nenzeit. Stuttgart,
1922

Lippold, G. Kopien und Umbildungen griechischer Statuen. Munich, 1923
Little, A. M. G. Roman Perspective Painting and the Ancient Stage.
Kenneburk, ME, 1971

Lloyd, R. B. ‘The Aqua Virgo, Euripus and Pons Agrippae’, AJA 83
(1979) 193-204

Lugli, G. La tecnica edilizia romana con particolare riguardo al Lazio. Rome,
1957

Lyttleton, M. Baroque Architecture in Classical Antiquity. London, 1974
MacDonald, W. L. The Architecture of the Roman Empire: 1. An Introductory
Study, 1965, rev. 1982; 1. An Urban Appraisal, 1986. New
Haven-London

McKay, A. G. Houses, Villas and Palaces in the Roman World. London, 1975
Macready, S. and Thompson, F. H. (eds.) Roman Architecture in the Greek
World. Society of Antiquaries Occasional Papers, n.s. 10. London, 1987
Maiuri, A. Rowan Painting. Geneva, 1953

Mansuelli, G. A. ‘El arco honorifico en el desarrollo de la arquitectura
romana’, AEA 27 (1954) 93-178

Mansuelli, G. A. Le ville del mondo romano. Milan, 1958

Mansuelli, G. A. Galleria degli Uffizi. I ritratti. Rome, 1961

Mansuelli, G. A. Architettura e citta. Problemi del mondo classico. Bologna,
1970

Mansuelli, G. A. ‘Programmi funerari e monumentalizzazione
suburbana. Esempi di urbanistica romana’ St Romagnoli 29 (1978) 347ff
Mansuelli, G. A. Studi sulf arco onorario romano. Rome, 1979

Mansuelli, G. A. Roma e il mondo romano. 2 vols. Turin, 1981

1130

488.
489.
49°.
491.

492.
493-

494.

495-
496.

497.
498.

499-
500.

gol.

$02.
503.

504.

5O5-

506.

5°7-
508.

509.
510.
S11.

512.

513.
514.
515.

516.

F. SOCIETY, RELIGION, CULTURE

Mansuelli, G. A. ‘Forme e significati dell’architettura di Roma nell’eta
del principato’, ANRW I, 12. 1 (1982) 212-32

Mansuelli, G. A. ‘La citta romana nei primi secoli dell’impero. Tendenze
dell’urbanistica’, ANRW II, 12. 1 (1982) 145-78

Mansuelli, G. A. in Rasenna: Storia e civilta degli Etruschi, 679-713. Milan,
1986

Mansuelli, G. A., Arslan, E. A. and Scagliarini, D. Urbanistica e
architettura della Cisalpina romana. Brussels, 1971

Marconi, P. La pittura dei Romani. Rome, 1929

Maria, S de ‘Metodologia per una rilettura dei fornici di Roma antica’,
Parametro 20 (1973) 41ff

Marini Calvani, M. M. ‘Urbanizzazione e programmi urbanistici nel
settore occidentale della Cispadana Romana’, Caesarodunum 20 (1985)
349-73

Martin, H. Rémische Tempelstatuen. Rome, 1987

Massner, A.-K. Bildnisangleichung, Untersuchungen zur Entstebungs- und
Wirkungsgeschichte der Augustusportrats (43 v. Chr.—68 n. Chr.). Berlin, 1982
Manu, A. Geschichte der decorativen Wandmalerei in Pompei. Berlin, 1882
Megow, W.-R. Kameen von Augustus bis Alexander Severus. Berlin, 1987
Memel, R. Das Odeion. Frankfurt, 1980

Mielsch, H. Romische Stuckreliefs. Heidelberg, 1975

Mielsch, H. ‘Funde und Forschungen zur Wandmalerei der
Prinzipatszeit von 1945 bis 1975, mit einem Nachtrag 1980’, ANRW'II,
12. 2 (1981) 158-203, 247-56

Mielsch, H. Die rémische Villa, Architektur und Lebensform. Munich, 1987
Mitchell, S. ‘Imperial building in the eastern Roman provinces’, in F 479,
18-25

Mobius, H. ‘Sinn und Typen der rémischen Kaiserkameen’, ANRW TI,
12. 3 (1985) 32-88

Moretti, G. Ara Pacis Augustae. Rome, 1948

Morricone Matini, M. L. Mosaici antichi in Italia. Regione prima. Roma: Reg
X. Palatium, 1967

La mosaique gréco-romaine. Paris, 1965

Mostra Augustea della Romanita: Bimillenario della nascita di Augusto.
Exhibition Catalogue. Rome, 1938

Miller, V. ‘The Roman basilica’, AJA 41 (1937) 250-61

Mustilli, D. ‘L’arte augustea’, in C 12A, 307-77

Napoli, M. Pittura antica in Italia. Bergamo, 1960

Neppi Modona, A. Edifici teatrali greci e romani: teatri, odei, anfiteatri, circhi.
Florence, 1961

Neudecker, R. Die Skulpturenausstattung romischer Villen in Italien. Mainz,
1987

NeLciee: N. L’architettura delle fontane e dei ninfei nell Italia antica.
Naples, 1965

Niemayer, H. G. Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der rémischen Kaiser.
Berlin, 1968

Pallottino, M. Arte figurativa e ornamentale. Rome, 1940

517-
518.
519.

$20.

21.
522.

§23.
524.
$25.
526.

$27.
528.

529.
530.
531.
532.
533.
534.

535-
536.

537-
538.
539-

$40.
541.

$42.
543-
544.
545.

546.

ART AND ARCHITECTURE 1131

Pallottino, M. ‘Arco onorario e trionfale’, s.v. in EAA 1. Rome, 1958
Paribeni, R. ‘Le opere pubbliche’, in c 12A, 405-13

Parra, M. C. ‘Per la definizione del rapporto fra teatri e ninfei’, SCO 25
(1976) 89-118

La peinture murale romaine dans les provinces de ? Empire (BAR International
Series 165). Oxford, 1983

La peinture murale antique (Actes du séminaire de Paris 1985, DAF 10, 1987)
Pekary, T. Das rémische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft.
Dargestellt anhand der Schriftquellen. Berlin, 1985

Peters, W. J. T. Landscape in Romano-Campanian Mural Painting. Assen,

1963
Phillips, E. J. ‘The Roman law on the demolition of buildings’, Latomus
32 (1973) 86-95

Picard, G.-C. Les trophées romains. Contribution a histoire de la religion et de
art triomphal de Rome. Paris, 1957

Picard, G.-C. L’art romain. Paris, 1962; transl. as F 527

Picard, G.-C. Roman Painting. London, 1970

Polacco, L. I/ volto di Tiberio. Rome, 1955

Polaschek, K. Portrattypen einer claudischen Kaiserin. Rome, 1973
Polaschek, K. Studien zur Ikonographie der Antonia Minor. Rome, 1973
Pollini, J. ‘Studies in Augustan “historical” reliefs’. Diss., Berkeley, 1978
Pollitt, J. J. The Art of Rome (753 3.C—337 A.D.). Sources and
Documents. New York, 1966; reissued Cambridge, 1983

Poulsen, Greek and Roman Portraits in English Country Houses. Oxford,
1923

Poulsen, F. Portratstudien in norditalienischen Provinzmuseen. Copenhagen,
1928

Poulsen, F. Romische Privatportrats und Prinzenbildnisse. Copenhagen, 1939
Poulsen, F. Claudische Prinzen. Studien zur Ikonographie des ersten rimischen
Kaiserhauses. Baden-Baden, 1960

Poulsen, V. H. Les portraits romains. 1. République et dynastie julienne.
Copenhagen, 1962

Rakob, F. ‘Rémische Architektur’, in Propylaen Kunstgeschichte 1, 153 ff.
Berlin, 1967

Ramage, E. S. ‘Augustus’ treatment of Julius Caesar’, Hist. 34 (1985)
223-45

Recueil général des mosaiques de la Gaule. Paris, 1957

Richard, J. C. ‘Mausoleum. D’Halicarnasse 4 Rome, puis 4 Alexandrie’,
Latomus 29 (1970) 370-88

Rickman, G. ‘Porticus Minucia’, in F 330, 105-8

Riemann, H. ‘Pons Agrippae’, RE xx1, 2 (1952) 2455-61

Rizzo, G. E. La pittura ellenistica-romana. Milan, 1929

Rizzo, G. E. ‘Le pitture della “Casa dei Grifi”’, in MonPitt III, vol. Roma
I. Rome, 1936

Rizzo, G. E. ‘Le pitture dell’ Aula Isiaca di Caligola’, in MonPitt III, vol.
Roma II. Rome, 1936

1132
547.
548.
$49.

550.
551.

552.

553-

554.
555-
556.

557-

558.

559.

560.

561.

562.
563.

564.
565.

566.
567.

568.

569.
$70.
$71.

$72.
$73-

F. SOCIETY, RELIGION, CULTURE

Rizzo, G. E. ‘Le pitture della “Casa di Livia”’, in MonPitt III, vol. Roma
III. Rome, 1937

Roccos, L. J. ‘Apollo Palatinus: the Augustan Apollo on the Sorrento
base’, AJA 93 (1989) 571-88

Rodenwaldt, G. Kunst der Antike (Propylaen Kunstgeschichte 11). Berlin,
1927

Rodenwaldt, G. Kunst um Augustus. Berlin, 1942

Roman Urban Defences in the West. London, 1983

Roques de Maumont, H. von Antike Reiterstandbilder. Berlin, 1958
Rowell, H. T. ‘Vergil and the forum of Augustus’, AJP/ 62 (1941)
261-76

Rumpf, A. ‘Rémische historische Reliefs’, BJ 155—G6 (1955-6) 122-35
Ryberg, I. S. “The procession of the Ara Pacis’, MAAR 19 (1949) 77-101
Ryberg, I. S. Rétes of the state religion in Roman art (MAAR 22). Rome,
1955

Ryberg, I. S. ‘Clupeus uirtutis’, The Classical Tradition (Studies Caplan)
(1966) 232-8

Sadurska, A. ‘L’art d’Auguste: progrés, regrés, ou transformation?’, in
A $4A, 70-3

Santoro Bianchi, S. ‘Alcune riflessioni su scuole e tipologie urbanistiche
nell’Italia centro-settentrionale’, Caesarodunum 20 (1985) 375—92
Sauron, G. ‘Le message symbolique des rinceaux de |’Ara Pacis
Augustae’, CR AI (1982) 81-101

Sauron, G. ‘Le message esthétique des rinceaux de!’ Ara Pacis Augustae’,
RA (1988) 3-40

Schefold, K. La peinture pompéienne. Essai sur lévolution de sa signification.
Brussels, 1972

Schefold, K. ‘Caesars Epoche als goldene Zeit rémischer Kunst’,
ANRYW I, 4 (1973) 945-69

Schmidt Colinet, A. Antike Stitefiguren. Frankfurt, 1977

Schneider, B. Studien zu den kleinformatigen Kaiserportrats von den Anfagen
der Kaiserzeit bis ins dritte Jahrhundert. Munich, 1976

Schumacher, W. N. Bastlika: Untersuchungen zur antiken und
Jfribmittelalterlichen Baukunst. Berlin, 1928

Sculture municipali delParea Sabellica tra Peta di Cesare e quella di Nerone.
(Studi Miscellanei 10 (1963—1964)). Rome 1965

Sear, F. B. Roman Wall and Vault Mosaics. Heidelberg, 1977

Sena Chiesa, G. and Facchini, G. M. “Gemme romane di eta imperiale:
produzione, commerci, committenza’, ANRW II, 12. 3 (1985) esp. 3-31
Settis, S. ‘“‘Esedra” e “‘ninfeo” nella terminologia architettonica del
mondo romano’, ANRW I, 4 (1973) 661-745

Shipley, F. ‘Chronology of the building operations in Rome from the
death of Caesar to the death of Augustus’, MAAR 9 (1931) 17-Go
Shipley, F. Agrippa’s Building Activities in Rome. St Louis, 1933
Sichtermann, H. ‘Gemalte Garten in pompeianischen Zimmern’, AW 5
(1974) vol. 3, 41-51

574.
575-

576.
$77:

578.

579-
580.
581.
582.
583.
584.
585.
586.

5 87.
588.

589.
599.

591.
§92.

593-

594.

595-

597-

ART AND ARCHITECTURE 1133

Simon, E. ‘Zur Augustusstatue von Prima Porta’, MD_AI(R) 64 (1957)
46-68

Simon, E. ‘Das neugefundene Bildnis des Gaius Caesar in Mainz’, MZ 58
(1963) 1-18

Simon, E. Ara Pacis Augustae. Taibingen, 1967

Simon, E. Augustus: Kunst und Leben in Rom um die Zeitenwende. Munich,
1986

Simpson, C. J. ‘The date of the dedication of the temple of Mars Ultor’,
JRS 67 (1977) 91-4

Sj6qvist, E. ‘Kaisareion. A study in architectural iconography’, ORom 1
(1954) 86-108

Smith, R. R. R. ‘The Imperial reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias’,
JRS 77 (1987) 88-138

Speyer, W. ‘Das Verhaltnis des Augustus zur Religion’, ANRWII, 16.3
(1986) 1777-805

Stemmer, K. Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Chronologie und Ikonographie der
Pangerstatuen. Berlin, 1978

Stewart, A. F. ‘To entertain an emperor: Sperlonga, Laokoon and
Tiberius at the dinner-table’, JRS 67 (1977) 76-90

Strong, E. La scultura romana da Augusto a Costantino. 2 vols. Florence,
1923-6

Strong, E. Art in Ancient Rome. London, 1929

Strong, E. ‘The art of the Augustan age’, in CAH x! (1934) s45ff
Studi sulla citta antica. Rome, 1983

Taeger, F. Charisma. Studien zur Geschichte des antiken Herrscherkultes.
Stuttgart, 1957 and 1960

Tamassia, A. M. ‘La pittura nell’eta di Augusto’, Arte antica e moderna 4
(1958) 319-33

Tamm, B. Asditorium and Palatium. A Study on Assembly-Rooms in Roman
Palaces During the 1st Century B.C. and the 1st Century A.D. Stockholm, 1963
Tamm, B. Neros Gymnasium in Rom. Stockholm, 1970

Technau, W. Die Kunst der Romer (Geschichte der Kunst, das Altertum).
Berlin, 1940

Thompson, H. ‘The impact of Roman architects and architecture on
Athens: 170 B.C.—A.D. 170’, in Macready, S. and Thompson, F. H. (eds.)
Roman Architecture in the Greek World (The Society of Antiquaries
Occasional Papers n.s. 10) London, 1987

Thornton, M. K. and R. L. Julio-Claudian Building Programs, a Quantitative
Study in Political Management. Wauconda, 1989

Todd, M. ‘Forum and capitolium in the early Empire’, in Grew, F. and
Hobley, B. (eds.) Roman Urban Topography in Britain and the Western
Empire (CBA ResRep. 59), 55-66. London, 1985

. Torelli, M. Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs (Jerome

Lectures, 14th Ser.). Ann Arbor, 1982
Toynbee, J. M. C. “The Ara Pacis reconsidered and historical art in
Roman Italy’, PBA 39 (1953) 67-95

1134
598.

599-
Goo.

608.
609.

610.

621.
622.
623.
624.

625.

F. SOCIETY, RELIGION, CULTURE

Toynbee, J. M. C. ‘The Ara Pacis Augustae’, JRS 51 (1961) 153-6
Toynbee, J. M. C. The Art of the Romans. London, 1963

Tram Tan Tinh. Catalogue des peintures romaines du Musée du Louvre. Patis,
1974

. Treves, P. I/ mito di Alessandro e la Roma d’ Augusto. Milan and Naples,

1953

. Tufi, S. R. ‘Frammenti delle statue dei sammi viri nel foro di Augusto’,

DArch 3.1 (1981) 69-84

. Vermeule, C. C. Roman and Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor.

Cambridge, 1968

. Vermeule, C. The Cult Images of Imperial Rome. Rome, 1987
. Vierneisel, K. and Zanker, P. Die Bildnisse des Augustus. Herrscherbild und

Politik im kaiserlichen Rom. Munich, 1979

. La villa romana. Bologna, 1971
. Vos, M. de ‘Due monumenti di pittura postpompeiana a Roma’, BCAR

81 (1968-9) 149ff

Vos, M. de L’egittomania in pitture e mosaici romano-campani della prima eta
imperiale. Leiden, 1980

Walker, S. and Burnett, A. The Image of Augustus (British Museum
Publications). London, 1981

Walker, S. and Burnett, A. Agustus (Handlist of the exhibition and
supplementary studies) (British Museum Occasional Papers 16).
London, 1981

. Wallace-Hadrill, A. “The golden age and sin in Augustan ideology’, Pe P

95 (1982) 19-36

. Ward-Perkins, J. B. ‘From Republic to Empire: reflections on the early

provincial architecture of the Roman west’, JRS 60 (1970) 1-19

. Ward-Perkins, J. B. Architettura romana. Milan, 1974 (transl. as Roman

Architecture. New York, 1977)

. Ward-Perkins, J. B. Cities of Ancient Greece and Italy. Planning in Classical

Antiquity. London, 1974

. Ward-Perkins, J. B. Roman Imperial Architecture. Harmondsworth, 1981
. Wardman, A. Religion and Statecraft among the Romans. London, 1982

. Weinstock, S. ‘Pax and the “Ara Pacis”’, JRS 50 (1960) 44-58

. West R. Romische Portratplastik 1-11. Munich, 1933-41

. Wheeler, M. Roman Art and Architecture. London, 1964

. White, P. ‘Julius Caesar in Augustan Rome’, Phoenix 42 (1988) 334-56

Williams Lehmann, P. Roman Wall Painting from Boscoreale in the
Metropolitan Museum of Art. Cambridge, MA, 1953

Wilson-Jones, M. ‘Designing the Roman Corinthian Order’, JRA 2
(1989) 35-69

Winckes, R. Clipeata Imago. Studien xu einer rémischen Bildnisform. Bonn,
1969

Winckes, R. ‘Zum IlIlusionismus rdémischer Wandmalereien der
Republik’, ANRW I, 4 (1973) 927-44

Zanker, P. Forum Augustum. Das Bildprogramm. Tibingen, n.d. [¢. 1968]

626.
627.
628.
629.
630.

631.

632.
633.

634.
635.

636.

637.

638.
639.

640.
641.

642.
643.

644.
645.
646.
647.

648.

LAW 1135

Zanker, P. Forum Romanum. Die Neugestaltung durch Augustus. Tabingen,
1972

Zanker, P. Studien zu den Augustus-Portrats, 1: Der Actium-Typus (Abh.
Gétt. Ak. Wiss. 3). Gottingen, 1973

Zanker, P. Kéassizistische Statuen. Studien zur Verdnderung des
Kunstgeschmacks in der rémischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz, 1974

Zanker, P. Provinzielle Kaiserportrats. Zur Rezeption der Selbstdarstellung des
Princeps. Munich, 1983

Zanker, P. ‘Der Apollontempel auf dem Palatin’, in F 330, 21-40
Zanker, P. ‘Zur Bildnisreprasentation ftihrender Manner in
mittelitalischen und campanischen Stadten zur Zeit der spaten Republik
und der julisch-claudischen Kaiser’, in E 77, 251-66

Zanker, P. Augustus und die Macht der Bilder. Munich, 1987

Zanker, P. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Jerome Lectures,
16th Ser.) (transl. of ‘Augustus und die Macht der Bilder’, by A.
Shapiro). Ann Arbor, 1988

Zazoff, P. Die antiken Gemmen. Munich, 1983

Zevi, F. La casa Reg, LX, 5, 18-21 a Pompei (Studi Misc. 5 (1960—-1)). Rome,
1964

Zinserling, G. ‘Der Augustus von Primaporta als offizidses Denkmal’,
Acta Antiqua 15 (1967) 327-39

4. LAW

Allison, J. E. and Cloud, J. D. ‘The /ex Inlia maiestatis’, Latomus 21 (1962)
711-31

Astolfi, R. I‘ Libri Tres Iuris Civilis’ di Sabino. Padua, 1983

Atkinson, K. M. T. “The education of the lawyer in ancient Rome’, The
South African Law Journal 87 (1970) 31-59

Bauman, R. A. The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan
Principate. Johannesburg, 1967

Bauman, R. A. Impietas in Principem. Munich, 1974

Bauman, R. A. Lawyers in Roman Transitional Politics. Munich, 1985
Bauman, R. A. Lawyers and Politics in the Early Roman Empire: a Study of
Relations Between the Roman Jurists and the Emperors from Augustus to
Hadrian (Minchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken
Rechtsgeschichte, 82), Part 1, chs. 1 and 2. Munich, 1989

Brunt, P. A. ‘The legal issue in Cicero, pro Balbo’, CQ n.s. 32(1982)
136-47

Buckland, W. W. The Roman Law of Slavery. The Condition of the Slave in
Private Law from Augustus to Justinian. Cambridge, 1908; repr. 1970
Buckland, W. W. A Textbook of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian. 31d
edn revised by P. Stein. Cambridge, 1966

Cancelli, F. ‘Il presunto “ius respondendi” istituito da Augusto’, BIDR
29 (1987) 5-31

Champlin, E. ‘Pegasus’, ZPE 32 (1978) 269-78

1136

649.

651.
652.

653.

654.
655.

656.
657.
658.

659.
660.

661.
662.

663.
664.
665.

666.
666A.

667.
668.
669.
670.
671.
672.

673.

674.

675.

676.

F. SOCIETY, RELIGION, CULTURE

Cloud, J. D. ‘The Augustan authorship of the lex Iulia de vi publica
(Digest 46.6)’, LCM 12 (1987) 82-5

. Corbett, P. E. The Roman Law of Marriage. Oxford, 1930; repr. Aalen,

1979
Falchi, G. L. Le controversie tra Sabiniani e Proculiani. Milan, 1981

Frier, B. W. The Rise of the Roman Jurists: Studies in Cicero’s pro Caecina.
Princeton, 1985

Girard, P. F. ‘Les leges Iuliae iudiciorum publicorum et priuatorum’,
ZRG 34 (1913) 295-371

Gualandi, G. Legislazione imperiale e giurisprudenza. 2 vols. Milan, 1963
Hennig, D. ‘T. Labienus und der erste Maiestatsprozess de famosis libellis ,
Chiron 3 (1973) 245-54

Honoré, A. M. ‘Proculus’, RHD 30 (1962) 472-509

Honoré, A. M. Emperors and Lawyers. London, 1981

Horak, -F. Rationes Decidendi: Entscheidungbegriindungen bei den dlteren
romischen Juristen bis Labeo 1. Innsbruck, 1969

Johnston, D. The Roman Law of Trusts. Oxford, 1988

Jolowicz, H. F. and Nicholas, B. Historical Introduction to the Study of
Roman Law. 31rd edn. Cambridge, 1972

Kaser, M. Das rémische Zivilprozessrecht. Munich, 1966

Kaser, M. Das rémische Privatrecht. 2nd edn. Vol. 1 Munich, 1971; Vol. 11
Munich, 1975

Kaser, M. ‘“‘Ius Honorarium” und “lus Civile”’, ZRG 101 (1984) 1-114
Koschaker, P. Europa und das rimische Recht. 4th edn. Munich, 1966
Krampe, C. Proculi Epistulae: eine Frihklassische Juristenschrift. Karlsruhe,
1970

Kunkel, W. ‘Das Wesen des ius respondend?, ZRG 66 (1948) 423-57
Kunkel, W. Herkanft und Soziale Stellung der rimischen Juristen. 2nd edn.
Graz—-Vienna—Cologne, 1967

Kunkel, W. An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History
(transl. by J. M. Kelly) znd edn. Oxford, 1973

Liebs, D. ‘Rechtsschulen und Rechtsunterricht im Principat’, ANRW
TI, 15 (1976) 197-286

Litewski, W. ‘Die ro6mische Appellation in Zivilsachen’, ANRW II, 14
(1982) 60-96

Martini, R. Le definizioni dei giuristi romani. Milan, 1966

Mayer-Maly, T. ‘Proculus’, RE s.v. (1957) 1234-40

Norr, D. ‘Pomponius: oder “Zum Geschichtsverstandnis der romischen
Juristen”’, ANRW II, 15 (1976) 497-604

Norr, D. ‘Planung in der Antike: Uber die Ehegesetze des Augustus’, in
Baier, H. (ed.) Fretheit und Sachzwang: Beitrage zu Ehren H. Schelskys, 309-
34. Opladen, 1977

Norr, D. ‘I giuristi romani: tradizionalismo o progresso?’, BIDR 84
(1981) 9-33

Norr, D. ‘C. Cassius Longinus: der Jurist als Rhetor (Bemerkungen zu
Tacitus, Ann. 14.42ff.)’, in Heine, H. (ed.) Althistorische Studien H.
Bengtson, 187-222. Wiesbaden, 1983

Norr, D. ‘Zur Biographie des Juristen C. Cassius Longinus’, in Sodalitas:

677.
678.
679.
680.
681.
682.
683.
684.
685.

686.
687.

688.
689.

690.
691.

692.
693.
694.
695.
696.
697.
698.
699.
700.

Jol.
7o2.

703.
704.
705.

706.

LAW 1137

Scritti in Onore di A. Guarino vi, 2957-78. Naples, 1984

Orestano, R. I/ potere normativo degli imperatori e le costituzioni imperiali.
Rome, 1937; repr. Turin, 1962

Pernice, A. Labeo: Rémisches Privatrecht im Ersten Jahrhundert der
Kaiserzeit. 3 vols. Halle, 1873-1900

Provera, G. ‘Ancora sul “ius respondendi”’, SDHI 28 (1962) 342-60
Pugliese, G. I/ Processo Civile Romano 11: I/ processo formularet. Milan, 1963
Riccobono, S. ‘La giurisprudenza dell’impero’, in c 124, 147-59
Rogers, R. S. ‘Ateius Capito and Tiberius’, in Synteleia V. Arangio-Ruiz 1,
123-7. Naples, 1964

Rohle, R. ‘Praetor Fideicommissarius’, RIDA 15 (1968) 399-428
Roman Statutes. London, 1995

Rotondi, G. Leges publicae populi romani. Milan, 1912; repr. with appendix,
1962

Ruggiero, E. de La patria nel diritto pubblico romano. Rome, 1921
Sargenti, M. ‘Considerazioni sul potere normativo imperiale’, in
Sodalitas: Scritti in Onore di A. Guarino vi, 2625-51. Naples, 1984
Scacchetti, M. G. ‘Note sulle differenze di metodo fra Sabiniani e
Proculiani’, in Studi in Onore di A. Biscardi v, 369-404. Milan, 1984
Schiller, A. A. Roman Law: Mechanisms of Development. The Hague~Paris—
New York, 1978

Schulz, F. History of Roman Legal Science. Oxford, 1946

Seidl, E. ‘Labeos geistiges Profil’, in Studi in Onore di E. Volterra, 63-81.
Milan, 1971

Sherwin-White, A. N. ‘Poena legis repetundarum’, PBSR 17 (1949) 5-25
Siber, H. ‘Plautius’, RE s.v. (1951) 4551

Stein, P. ‘The relations between grammar and law in the early principate:
the beginning of analogy’, La Critica del Testo 1, 757-69. Florence, 1971
Stein, P. “The two schools of jurists in the early principate’, Cambridge
Law Journal 31 (1972) 8-31

Sturm, F. ‘Pegaso: un giureconsulto dell’epoca di Vespasiano’, Asti del
Congresso Internazionale di Studi Vespasianei, 105-36. Rieti, 1981

Syme, R. ‘Fiction about Roman jurists’, ZRG 99 (1980) 78-104 (=A 94,
III, 1393-1414)

Thomas, J. A. C. ‘Lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis’, Etudes J. Macqueron,
637-44. Aix-en-Provence, 1970

Volkmann, H. Zur Rechtsprechung im Prinzipat des Augustus (Historische
Beitrage). Munich, 1935

Watson, A. The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford, 1967
Watson, A. Rome of the XII Tables. Princeton, 1975

Watson, A. ‘Roman slave law and Romanist ideology’, Phoenix 37 (1983)
5365

Watson, A. Roman Slave Law. Baltimore, 1987

Wieacker, F. Vom rémischen Recht. 2nd edn. Stuttgart, 1961

Wieacker, F. ‘Augustus und die Juristen seiner Zeit’, RHD 37 (1969)
331-49

Wieacker, F. ‘Respondere ex auctoritate principis’, in J. A. Ankum ef ai.
(eds.) Satura Roberto Feenstra oblata, 71-94. Fribourg, 1985

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 10"

See other formats